Executive Summary: Trump came on stage as America’s President and the world reacted. America of course, is the only overall –superpower in military and economics. Then the global economy has mostly recovered, from over 10 years of economic and business dystopian of the last financial crisis and so now forging ahead again, at this stage very robust. On social fabric, the planet has started to regress in general, on issues like democracy, freedom, justice and human rights, setting the stage for a worsening level of global dystopia as governments and population social contract break down. Global warming is getting worse causing radical weather patterns and the damage from that is worsening.

1) European Union: Moderately Strong Economy to Tame Social Discord

EU continues to be bright spot globally, internal economy & political wise, despite Catalan, & also on Geo issues, so let’s start with EU, while issues such as different speed, sticky unemployment & immigration raise concern, overall EU economy robust growth should take the edge out of many social related concerns.

Brexit is mostly a non-that-critical-issue now internally EU and on Geo-EU-issues wise. France’s Macron, back by research showing global people sees France in good light, is forging ahead globally, starting with addressing some difficult issues for France, such as its history, and also forging ahead on Global Warming issues, and some Middle East and news Africa issues.

Germany wise, there been lots speculation of Merkel, from a strong contender as the global leader (research says global people sees Germany in good light), has shied away and then a recent election in Germany sees some firm up of Fascist and Nazi, as a result of hyped up immigration problems on issues like immigration. But Geo issues wise, yes, immigrants suffering still heartbreak but EU’s addressing problem root & original place, coupled with better global economy and ISIL retreat, pressure should lessen.

As of this report, talks to form a coalition government in Germany have failed, but all parties involved in forming a government is in a discussion. The analysis is that France and Germany need to work together to reform EU. Some emerging again talk of transforming EU, into more a United States of Europe, coming out of Germany.

EU is starting to build up its own military, as a reaction to Trump’s on and off, non-committal to defend Europe from Russia. Some estimates say it will take 10 to 15 years before Europe does not need NATO.

2) USA: Trump & GOP Destruction of America Continues

The USA, once much respected globally and much a global leader has very much deteriorated into a situation where respect is mostly from USA military and economic power globally. But as far as respect from the impression of the USA being a global force for betterment & good, many analysts say that gone and history.

Many global polls and researchers say big majority of global people disapprove of Trump and this has dragged down America’s position globally, with a negative view on America way up. France, Canada and Germany, and also EU, surge in approval globally, replacing America.

And so the planet is left, with a vacuum of “Who Will Step in & Be Global Power for Positive Development?”

Been lots of global polls & research of how, like Canada and France, and also Germany is seen in very positive light by global people but they have not stepped in i.e. UN recent meet, Canada spoke of treating it’s indigenous better, France is busy with internal EU and again, Merkel is a question mark.

Internal USA wise, morality and ethics and also social fabric continues to deteriorate. The social contract between government and Americans are being torn apart by Trump & GOP, such as in healthcare and tax reduction policy that will help the rich and take away public service and well managed Blue states. A level of “Dystopia” has set in, with a great many Americans giving up hope. The latest election result in Alabama gives hope to 2018 Mid-Term and 2020 for Democrats.

Lots of discussions, if America can recover, from Trump & GOP caused damage, if indeed Democrat Party regains control, some say yes, others say no, as global completion is fierce and already other countries capitalizing on America’s fall.

3) Russia: Putin’s Changing Roles

Putin on Geo-issues, of course, Putin still on the path to see Russia as “A Great Global Power as in Stalin’s Days” but the fact that Putin will sooner or later, wake-up to, is that those days are gone, as the planet had fundamentally changed.

How has the planet changed? The planet is now more inter-connection and cross- dependence, and there is a massive rise of “Middle Powers.”

My expectation of Putin is, he will wrap up a few Geo-issues (like Syria) and then return to the global table and obviously, Putin is not a nut like Trump. Internally, I do not expect much from Putin, as far as a movement towards Liberal Democracy is concerned (the Russian people much, either Putin’s accomplice, brainwashed or do not care), but I think Putin will ease on oppression and suppression, starting with better refinement, on some specific issues, like counter-attack the West on the press.

And when he gets older and more mature, meaning time to pass-on leadership internal Russia could get better and the “Big If” here is if Putin really loves Russia, more than he loves himself and his oligarchy. Already there are signs that Putin wants to reach a position of a “Global Statesman.” For example, Russia is trying hard to solve the North Korea situation, peacefully and is also making offers to Japan on economic development.

Russia economy would benefit from the higher fossil price and this should strengthen Putin’s hand as the hardship in Russia lessens. Sanction-wise most likely will stay on, for a long time, but Russia has adapted well. Russia and China two way trade continue to grow, up some 25% a year in recent years.

Arms race wise, Putin is now mostly reacting to DC’s new wave of arms build-up. Trump on and off non-commital on NATO, adds to the complex situation.

4) Asia: China’s Economic Juggernaut Slows as China Expands Globally

Election solidified Abe and Abenomics is working very well so Japan’s economy looks solid, but Abe has taken a hard-line on North Korea, at a time of this reporting, a diplomatic solution is being sought after. Some overture from Japan to Russia and China for a better relationship, led by economic joint interest. EU and Japan free trade deal reached. Japan is now a major tourist destination in Asia, helping Japan’s soft power tremendously.

China wise, there are some sad developments internal of China being more regression and oppression. China and ASEAN continued to move closer overall, with their economies humming along at the high end of global average growth rate, however, in the medium to long term will pretty much will be held-back economically, from like USA issues, being the massive deterioration & regressions on social issues, so similar to America, “Way Below Potential.” Here, for example, curtailing of freedom and liberal democracy, will at levels hit creativity and innovation, and a dystopian population is negative for consumption.

Globally, China is forging ahead in Africa and Latin America, where most analysts say, doing better than most and making up lost and also forging ahead. Europe China relation wise, mostly driven by economics and business interest, but there is some national security concern, from such as from China’s one belt plans. China Russia economic and business-link is fast growing.

South China Sea situation not as hot as it was in recent years and North Korea issue has placed China in a difficult situation, meaning if North Korea junta falls, and a new leader is a threat to China what then, but then a nuclear North Korea is destabilizing the region, hurting China’s other interest and plans.

India economy is robust but Modi has some strong critics internal of India and there are lots of unresolved issues, such as pollution, which China also faces. India and China continue to face a hostile relationship and then there is Pakistan. There is some joint interest between India and Japan to counter China. India is considered close to USA and Israel, both could cause problems for Modi in a changing global geo issues.

Australia, a continent close to Asia, sees robust economic growth, but now and then an eruption of a bad relationship with other Asian countries, like China. Australia seems lost as to the macro direction, seeing itself as part of West or Asia.

STEM and Tech in Africa and Latin America is now the new foundation for the future and both regions are forging ahead aggressively at these two factors, with Latin America leading Africa and in many situations, Latin America is also leading Asia.

Economy wise the worse is over for the two regions and new business from globe over is pouring in, but there are some pockets of laggards.

Politically, many positive developments, but some new regression issue such as Mexico’s national security bill, add on top of old regressive issues, such as a male dominate culture, which apart from human rights concerns, hampers economic growth.

Relationship wise, Panama and Cuba and other prove to many in Latin America that America is not a friend, and trade relation wise, like NAFTA, also proves America is not a reliable partner. China, Russia, and EU are moving aggressively into both regions, with China offering the best, in terms of cost competitiveness.

Alliances wise in Africa and Latin America overall, there is a great re-alignment going on, with America on the way out.

High poverty is still a major issue in both regions, especially Africa, and also unemployment but talks are now in Africa of an industrial revolution, on top of STEM and Tech. Agriculture in Africa is benefitting from better management and knowledge.

Some conflict, terrorism and refugee problems and also political crisis here and there all across Africa and Latin America like politics in Venezuela.

The Middle East, greater & and further out continues to be a mess, with some new developments in like Turkey as an increasingly key participant and some wrap up of issues such as Syria and Iraq.

New issues wise, Trump has recognized Jerusalem as Israel capital, alienation the Muslim world away, on emotions wise, but in reality, there is still a great deal of reliance on America, for example, for arms and security guarantor. Terrorism is in retreat. And some talk of an easing of hard-line Muslim ways in Saudi Arabia, to be more open and liberal.

Fraction wise, Kuwait economy is still robust and has just made some major arms purchase. And on economic development-wise, like at UAE, Dubai is still forging ahead trying to be a global significant center.

But overall a note a note, as I said many times before, so much suffering in the whole Middle East, greater and further out area, is Bush family fault meaning the USA over-reacted and also took advantage 9/11 and also Russia fault, for invading Afghanistan way back, prompting Reagan to makes moves, setting the ball rolling for the global terrorism crisis.

I also mentioned, apart from Bush & Russia, you know much of Middle East, greater and further out, is related to energy. Who uses that energy? Well, global people do, so who are you going to blame also for so much suffering around there? So maybe you should give more to humanitarian units involved with around there, not of just feeding your life with energy, like for cars.

Alliances wise, not many cares, as long as oil flows, but Russia and Turkey have established a presence. Syria and Iraq situation is cooling off. Libya is still a problem on refugee like some in Africa. Then there is America’s recognizing Jerusalem as Israel capital, that have much alienated the Muslim world, but of course, much still need America’s security umbrella and as a guarantor oil will flow.

7) Economics: Global Robust with Emerging Threats to Assets

The global economy overall is robust, but there are some challenges and threat ahead for some asset class, as central banks raise interest rates. Then there are some unknown such as Trump and GOP tax cut, impact on global tax regimes, as competing countries with America reacts. Then while oil price is currently on the moderately high level, boom and bust is the nature of the sector.

Then global warming is causing weather pattern shifts, so the economic damage is massive and getting more massive. Then Trump and GOP are causing concern about globe’s “Free Market” system. On free markets, EU is forging ahead with global free trade deals.

Economic wise, latest data says the USA looks robust, but for me, my expectation is not as optimistic as Wall Street consensus, based on a general & fundamental, massive deterioration & regression in America’s social fabric, and also institutions & values, such as Democracy.

From my experience and several empirical research, in the medium to long-term, that deterioration, and regression to lead to “Way Below Potential Performance” of the USA economy.

Then on USA and Geo-issues, apart from mentioned, well, Trump is basically emotional and reactionary and so the USA on Geo-issues not reliable & is now a “Factor of Radical.” This can be seen in such issues as in trade postures and national security, such as in NAFTA and in Asia with North Korea, meaning Trump pouring fire onto the fire or in other words, Trump the nut is going insane with North Korea leader, another nut.

Paradise Papers, a massive leak relating to tax heaven, is causing a global shock and a re-thinking of off-shore tax heaven systems and methods. The full impact could be massive, as a great many politicians and firms are involved in minimizing tax, at a time, the rich and poor gap is widening and politicians are seen as not responsive to people’s wants and demand.

A general robust global economy, of course, means a high likelihood of good commodity price, so Africa & Latin America, and also Asia, should also benefit and overall there is some here and there, at levels, the same type of the USA “Deterioration & Regression” but at many places dissent is heard & attempt being made address situation, and also some election, so some pressure is lessened.

8) Capitalism and Free Market: A Period of Mood Swing

On global free trade and Capitalism quite insane, as the country that lead planet on these values, being America, is anti-free trade and on Capitalism, few in America know and follow Joseph Schumpeter, a father of Capitalism, who said that Capitalism will fail, not because of Socialism, but because of the failure in moral and ethics, of the Capitalist leader class. On this, as examples just look at Trump & GOP, from anti-democracy, pro-racism, joint propaganda with Fox news with massive use of fake news, anti-science on global warming, to installing poor education standard on American children.

9) Alliances & Strategic Partnership: New, Old and Ditching

Alliance on the global level wise, BRICS and ASEAN fragmented and not much cohesion and joint efforts, and in fact, lots of infighting and competition. India and Japan are offering some joint efforts to counter-balance China in Asia. Europe is keeping a fairly low key on Asian politics and national security, but there are calls for more involvement, to promote Liberal Democracies and Free World values and also some military projections.

EU forging economic ties global over, with latest being Japan.

Trump has alienated Latin America greatly, leaving a vacuum for China and Europe to fill, with China having a bit of an edge on price competitiveness. Africa is seen as highly important to China and it has an edge over Europe, where many in Africa have a negative view of the West, and again, China offers more in price competitiveness.

Europe wise, again Trump has alienated many and now left is the realization that they need NATO, but wish everything else American politics left Europe. EU is, of course, starting to build an EU military and it will be about a decade before EU can deal with America as a truly independent region of America.

Russia entanglement with American internal politics carries a cost, and this cost will come over the medium to longer term. China and America relationship is a big unknown that depends on Trump’s mood and pressure he is feeling on a variety of issues. Trump wise, globally, very unpopular and much ridicule and so dragging America down with him.

The Middle East and greater and further out, as I mentioned before, hopeless and depressing, as global people just want oil and cares little about the rest, except a few such as Palestine, Yemen and Syria people, and some other like the Kurds. ISIS is on the retreat in its strong-holds, but the global reach is still great, as basically, there is no way of eliminating terrorism, and the only thing that can be done in minimizing it. Alliance wise, again, global people much do not care, other than the impact on oil price.

10) Specific Issues: Often these specific issues are related, for example, global warming do cause immigration, famine and also wars and conflicts, and so they hit the economy. And on issues such as declining global democracy, freedom, justice and human rights, from causing dystopian in a society, can result in many events other than repression and oppression, but also hurt economic development, bringing about again issues such as poverty, migration and immigration. So in sum, there is a type of cycle going on and a type of repetition, of problems causing and feeding, on other problems.

Global Warming: Specific issue wise, you know, Global Warming is causing crazy weather and the damage to life and money from this crazy weather is massive. Hard hit recently like Puerto Rico & Caribbean will recover, but the damage is massive.

Rohingya: The situation with Rohingya people in Myanmar is heart-breaking, as this is clearly Genocide and Crime Against Humanity.

Syria and Yemen: The humanitarian crisis there heart-breaking, as this is clearly Genocide and Crime Against Humanity.

Mass Shooting: Another mass shooting in the USA, but I think global people know, apart from what I mentioned, America is hopeless when it comes to this issue.

Women Issue: Attention heightened with Hollywood and DC, but overall, globally, still little to address. Apart from the human rights issue, this is a major drag on global economy.

Colonialism: Colonialism, like over Palestine & Tibet people is a hopeless situation. Then there is like Kurds and West Papua and other.

Global Famine & Illness: Still a major problem in many places.

Immigration & Slavery: Instances of horror like drowning has lessened, but still occurring. Human slavery is still a major issue, even with advanced industrialized countries.

Indigenous: The indigenous cause has somewhat stabilized, with some danger of regression in Brazil, but more hope in other places like Canada.

Global Units: Global units like UN, losing some luster with some anti-globalist sentiment, but EU surges in popularity. Global Goal looks less achievable on time. Paris Climate Deal struggling, with some breakthrough from Macron. Davos (WEF) still represents’ mostly the 1% top richest but they now seem to recognize this is not sustainable. Economic grouping among countries increasing despite Trump’s anti-free trade.

Terrorism: Terrorism is losing steam with bouts of shocks, Iraq declare all territory taken by ISIS taken back. Remnants remain here and there territory wise, but global reach still there.

Tech: Tech continued to change how humans live and work, perhaps at a slower pace until the next wave of AI, automation, and robotics.

Travel & Tourism: Global tourism, travel & hospitality industry is very robust. There is some concern of overdevelopment and not sustainable.

Global Media: Global media infested with lots of nationalism, imperialism, and propaganda. There is no media for global people, as a whole, interest. Fake news is rampant.

]]>https://aseaneconomist.wordpress.com/2017/12/14/report-december-2017-state-of-the-globe-entering-2018/feed/0C7EHNW3XEAAKmP_thaiintelligentnewsThailand’s Corrupt Military: Dirty Money from Local to Global (Up-Dated)https://aseaneconomist.wordpress.com/2015/10/20/thailands-corrupt-military-the-hunt-for-dirty-money-from-local-to-global-up-date-10/
https://aseaneconomist.wordpress.com/2015/10/20/thailands-corrupt-military-the-hunt-for-dirty-money-from-local-to-global-up-date-10/#respondTue, 20 Oct 2015 08:15:39 +0000http://aseaneconomist.wordpress.com/?p=953The global arms sales industry is gigantic. Those countries, who are heavily involved in buying arms, are usually governed by some form of authoritarian, where the rule of law is weak, and little transparency to anything. And, often, when governments, changes from democratic, to authoritarian, usually, the spending on the military, sky-rocket, such as the case with Thailand and Egypt.

Most military will point to military equipment purchase, being mostly, “Government to Government” as proof that the deal is transparent, however, in every government to government purchase, in making the deal occur, there is always “Middle-Men.”

The Thai military set-up, reform Thailand body, just made a statement, that if Kingdom of Thailand had no corruption, Kingdom of Thailand will be a developed country in 17 years. The problem is, Kingdom of Thailand, is about the military, being above the government & the law, & is addicted, to taking power by coups, meaning “Corrupted by Power.”

But that is not all, the Kingdom of Thailand military, is highly corrupt, on “Money Matters” also (see end of this article on Thai press institution, Isra, investigation, on military corruption inside of Thailand deals over the past few years).

2

And corruption by Thailand’s military has been going on for a long time

For example, Thailand’s Army Denies Skimming Sihanouk Fund, during the after-math of the Vietnam War, after The Washington Post reported Thai military officers and perhaps businessmen had stolen about $3.5 million from an American aid program for the Cambodian guerrillas. Washington Post quoted The Far Eastern Economic Review that said the Reagan Administration had decided to increase its aid to the Cambodian guerrillas despite the discovery of serious corruption in Thailand’s delivery of the assistance (See Here http://www.nytimes.com/1988/11/02/world/thai-army-denies-skimming-sihanouk-fund.html).

And also, in Thailand’s Deep South there is a “Separatist Militant Movement” but given corruption, discrimination and unfair treatment against Muslims by the state, separatism in Thailand’s Deep South was nothing surprising. And Thailand’s Deep South has mostly been mostly, under the administration of Thailand’s military, under some form of emergency law form years now (See http://www.fpps.or.th/news.php?detail=n1149480173.news).

Thailand has also long been hit with a human trafficking problem. And here, local press reports military Lieutenant General Manus Kongpan is the most senior official to be charged to date in the anti human trafficking operation. Police say they have made 51 arrests. Manus was in police custody on Wednesday after turning himself in. He was suspended on Monday when police ordered his arrest. “He says he has no involvement, which is a denial (of charges),” Thai national police chief Somyot Poompanmuang told reporters on Wednesday. Manus is the only soldier who has been charged with offences related to human trafficking, said deputy police chief Aek Angsananont. Given the power of Thailand’s military, that is the dominant power in Thailand, what is the likelihood that only one soldier is involved in Thailand’s vast human trafficking problem (See http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/03/us-thailand-trafficking-arrest-idUSKBN0OJ14G20150603)?

While the Vietnam War and War with the Separatist Militant Movement & Human Trafficking, are corruptions, involving decades old questions, however, also, in Thailand’s modern history, with ample evidence of corruption in military, no corruption case, has ever, been bought on Thailand’s military.

For example, Transparency International rates the Sorayuth military junta government around 2006 to 2007, less transparent than Thaksin’s government & in fact, Transparency International ranked Thaksin government as the most transparent in Thailand’s history, since the ranking.

Thailand military, under the military junta of Sorrayuth, bought US$ billions in arms from the highly corrupt, Ukraine (armored carriers) arms industry & Sweden (planes) arms industry & a host of equipment Thailand’s military bought, such as balloon surveillance, to bomb detectors, does not work, and many arms purchase, faced years of delays in delivery. In fact, the corruption perception of Thailand’s military, meaning how corrupt is Thailand’s military, sky-rocketed after 2006 coup, where the military that staged the 2006 coup, with the rationale, that the coup was to stop Thaksin Shinawatra’s corruption (See http://knoema.com/QOGISD2015/quality-of-government-institute-standard-dataset-2015?tsId=1365740).

And corruption, under Thailand’s current “Dictator” Prayuth junta, is well known, as the Diplomat reports, headlined “Thai Junta Beset By Corruption Scandals” and said “The May 2, 2014 military coup in Thailand was justified on the need to fight corruption. Recent events prove that’s a sham” (See http://thediplomat.com/2014/10/thai-junta-beset-by-corruption-scandals/).

Now the Prayuth junta wants to spend about US$1 billion, to buy submarines from China. Transparency international rated China at the highest ranking of corruption & Kingdom of Thailand, the next, lower ranking level. Kingdom of Thailand’s economy is also stagnating, and many wonder, why is Thailand military planning a big ticketed purchase item. But globally, China is known as an arms seller, that “Transparency is rarely part of China’s deal” both opening the door for corruption and decreasing the likelihood that the system procured will be the best fit for the needs of the country (See http://latinamericagoesglobal.org/2015/05/should-u-s-be-worried-about-chinese-arms-sales-in-the-region/).

3

Anti-Corruption as a Political Tool

But as has been with Thailand for a long time, with a coup or attempted coup every 3 years, in Thailand modern history, after every military coup, resulting junta, raise corruption issue to legitimize coup, meaning, there have always been a war on the civilian government, that the coup ousted, for corruption. Basically, what the Thaksin and Yingluck are going through, is nothing new.

And structurally, Thailand is not ready to cope with corruption, of any kind, with an anti-corruption effort, always “Politicized” to go after the enemy of the Bangkok establishment and military.

For example, again, Transparency International found Thaksin’s government (Thaksin was ousted by the Sorrayuth 2006 coup) less corrupt than the 2006 coup Sorrayuth coup government & also the Democratic Party, Abhisit government which, mostly represents Bangkok’s middle-class. However, Thailand’s official anti corruption agency, called “Politicized” & ranked at the bottom in Asia, by Political & Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC), have rush going after Thaksin (Ousted by Sorrayuth 2006 coup) and his sister Yingluck (Ousted by Prayuth 2014 coup) with corruption charges.

As many have noted, the combination between Thailand’s official anti-corruption agency, going single-mindedly after Thaksin and Yingluck, and leaving corruption by others, un-scrutinized, and furthermore, apart from not scrutinizing corruption by other, the official unit has a long track record of clearing corruption by other, have left many Thai specialist and expert to conclude what PERC says. Furthermore, apart from not scrutinizing corruption by other, the official agency has a long track record of clearing other of corruption. Many Thai specialist have also noted, all of Thailand’s private or public anti corruption organizations/units, are “Politicized” & works for elite.

And again, for examples of corruption, Thailand military, under the military junta of Sorrayuth, bought US$ billions in arms from the highly corrupt Ukraine (armored carriers) arms industry & Sweden (planes) arms industry & a host of equipment Thailand’s military bought, such as balloon surveillance, to bomb detectors, does not work, and many arms purchase, faced years of delays in delivery. And in one case, here, on the fake bomb detector, Thailand’s official anti-corruption agency says investigating into Thailand’s military bomb detector for corruption is difficult, as the case is deep and mysterious (See in Thai language http://www.matichon.co.th/news_detail.php?newsid=1444995073).

And local Thai press, has long did investigative report on the Swedish fighter jet, Gripen, sales to Thailand. Local press has long compares Thailand’s military purchase of the Swedish jet fighter, as being more expensive than the purchase price, 5 other countries have paid for the fighter jets. And again, nothing but silence, from Thailand’s official anti-corruption agency (See in Thai language http://www.matichon.co.th/news_detail.php?newsid=1279160046).

Secondly, please consider, the military organisational structure, by design, tolerates corruption. Even though it is efficient in term of combat and warfare, its prices are paid for in term of transparency and accountability. The military gets extra shields from positive public perception allowing corruption to be accommodated rather than be challenged and accountability more hard-earning. In conclusion, the military did not fight against corruption at all, despite the fact that it is always alleged so in many coup d’état (Chambers, 2013b). Moreover, anti-corruption coup never happens in Thailand. Policy implications of these findings are quite repulsive. Basically, the rationale of eliminating corruption by staging military coup is no longer valid (See http://extranet.isnie.org/uploads/isnie2014/thavornyutikarn.pdf).

Fourth, please consider, there combination, between Thailand’s anti-corruption agency being politicized and Thailand’s “Dictator” Prayuth power, going after Yingluck, have resulted, in an incredible little respect to the “Rule of Law” & “Justice System” moves, in that Thailand’s military Dictator, Prayuth, has been going after Yingluck Shinawatra for “Failing to Stop” corruption case, in her agriculture subsidy scheme, to the point of by “Passing the Courts and Using Administrative Order” to go after her.

A politician, demonstrated the level of out-raged in some circles in Thailand. Chatuporn, a politician, just asked the Dictator, Prayuth, if he is not interested in going after other corruption case and raised the case of Thailand’s failed financial firm asset sales and police station building scam. Both case involved the Democrat Party, where Abhisit is a leader of the party. Both case involves US$ billions in damages. Abhisit’s chief of security is Suthep, who went on to lead the Suthep Movement (called by Forbes Magazine Neo Fascist) that destabilized Thailand & called for a coup (Suthep called on Prayuth to stage a coup, to which latter Prayuth staged the 2014 coup) After the coup, Suthep said he and Thailand’s Dictator, Prayuth, had been working together & he spend about US$50 million to get rid of Yingluck. Suthep is now a staunch supporter of Prayuth (See in Thai language http://www.matichon.co.th/news_detail.php?newsid=1445168843).

The following is a list of Non-Transparent purchase by Thailand’s military, as exposed by the Thai press institution Isra. A note is that the Kingdom of Thailand’s military is independent from every civilian government & is out of government control. Also corruption statistics by PwC Consulting, from 2014 survey says Thais are champion of highest corruption by personnel w/i organizations at 89%, average Asia-Pacific 61%, global 56% (See in Thai language http://www.posttoday.com/biz/gov/395258).

]]>https://aseaneconomist.wordpress.com/2015/10/20/thailands-corrupt-military-the-hunt-for-dirty-money-from-local-to-global-up-date-10/feed/030188851-01_bigthaiintelligentnewsThe West, with more freedom, will out-pace Asia, in coming years, on Big Data & Analyticshttps://aseaneconomist.wordpress.com/2014/11/25/the-west-with-more-information-freedom-friendly-society-will-out-pace-asia-in-coming-years-on-big-data-analytics/
https://aseaneconomist.wordpress.com/2014/11/25/the-west-with-more-information-freedom-friendly-society-will-out-pace-asia-in-coming-years-on-big-data-analytics/#respondTue, 25 Nov 2014 01:43:13 +0000http://aseaneconomist.wordpress.com/?p=931Consider this statement, of the reality in Big Data & Anslytics: “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Data — How Billions of Trivial Data Points can Lead to Understanding.” And consider this statement about the reality much of Asia: “Asia is Mostly Stuck in Some Level of Orwell’s 1984.” In fact, just to demonstrated that Asia’s Orwell’s 1984, in the latest Reporters Without Borders report, most of Asia, is in the color “Red or Black” meaning, there is little freedom of the press. In fact, also demonstrating, Asia’s Orwell’s 1984, just this year, there was a first meeting, in history, of Asia’s investigative journalist.

Perhaps, the West & its more information freedom friendly society, will out-pace Asia, in coming years, on Big Data & Analytics.

Gartner, Inc. today said advanced analytics is a top business priority, fuelled by the need to make advanced analysis accessible to more users and broaden the insight into the business. Advanced analytics is the fastest-growing segment of the business intelligence (BI) and analytics software market and surpassed $1 billion in 2013.

“While advanced analytics have existed for over 20 years, big data has accelerated interest in the market and its position in the business,” said Alexander Linden, research director at Gartner. “Rather than being the domain of a few select groups (for example, marketing, risk), many more business functions now have a legitimate interest in this capability to help foster better decision making and improved business outcomes.”

IT and business leaders must expand their efforts to move their organizations from using only traditional BI that addresses descriptive analysis (what happened) to advanced analytics, which complements by answering the “why,” the “what will happen,” and “how we can address it”

IDC’s Asia/PacificBig Data and Analytics research examines the key market trends, competitive landscape, technologies, and end-user buying behavior from an IT and LOB standpoint. The research is focused on the areas of Big Data — which is a new generation of software and architectures designed to economically extract value from very large volumes of a wide variety of data by enabling high-velocity capture, discovery, and/or analysis — and business analytics (BA). BA includes data warehousing, analytics applications, business intelligence, and advanced analytics. This research

In addition to the insight provided in this service, IDC may conduct research on specific topics or emerging market segments via research offerings that require additional IDC funding and client investment.

Key Questions Answered

What are the key areas of growth by country, industry, and functional markets for Big Data and BA?

What are the market shares and competitive positioning of the leading vendors?

What are IT buyers’ priorities, challenges, and spending plans for Big Data/BA in APEJ, and how can vendors address them?

How is the Big Data/BA competitive space evolving, and what are the key recommendations for vendors?

How can end users leverage Big Data? Which are the key buyer use cases in APEJ? Which are the top solutions?

How are the new delivery and consumption models like cloud (BdaaS), mobile, and appliances impacting the overall market?

Japan investing in robotic workforce to regain status as world’s top manufacturer

Once the undisputed world leader in robotic technology, Japan’s supremacy in the field is being challenged by rival robot producing countries.

Now the government is pouring money into regaining that place to ensure the robot age starts in Japan.

Pepper is the world’s first emo robot and represents a huge leap in artificial intelligence. It can read facial expressions, voice tones and body language and then respond.

At Omotosando, an upmarket shopping district in Tokyo, Pepper works in a mobile phone store doing market research.

Pepper told one woman: “You’re very lovely – do people say that to you often? Now it’s your turn to compliment me! What do you think of my face?”

And then later joked with a male customer: “So you want to become Pepper? Well you’ve got shave off your chest hair and smear white paint over your body and then strip off your clothes.”

Pepper is designed to be cute. He stands about 120 centimetres tall and has big puppy dog eyes.

On sale for $2,000 from next year, Pepper is sure to be big seller. As a household robot, Pepper will do the washing, the vacuuming and all the mundane chores with a smile.

But Japanese industry and government have serious plans for Pepper and robots like him. They want to build 30 million Peppers to create a workforce that can make Japan the world’s number one manufacturer again.

On the outskirts of Tokyo is the factory of the future, Nextage. Robots control the floor making ATMs and vending machines.

Nextage manufacturing robot: At the Nextage factory on the outskirts of Tokyo, robots control the floor making ATM and vending machines. They do the work of three humans, 24 hours a day. (ABC News)

They do the work of three human beings 24 hours a day, they do not take sick days or suffer fatigue. A perfect labourer perhaps?

The company introduced the robots so they could have a cheap, reliable source of labour in Japan and cut the costs of overseas operations.

Nextage manager Toshifumi Tsuji said productivity had increased five-fold since the factory introduced the robots two years ago.

“The companies that want to use these kinds of robots are increasing rapidly, so these humanoid robots will keep evolving, become faster and even more efficient,” Mr Tsuji said.

The human workers at Nextage look like the robots’ assistants. They run around to ensure the robots have everything they need for proper functioning.

Part-time worker Kimie Aoki said she saw the robots as colleagues and was not threatened by their presence.

“The robots have cameras and they can find defects which are hard to find for humans. I think they are helping us make better products,” she said.

Will robots be a hindrance or a help?

Theorists said robots like Pepper could mean an end to menial labour and usher in a new age of creative work, while others believe they will lead to unemployment and more inequality. It is a debate keeping academics and analysts busy.

Robot suit helps people lift heavy weights

The Japanese government sees robots as not only helping resolve its labour shortages in industry, but also in aged care.

There are 31 million people over 65 years old in Japan. That number will grow rapidly, as will the demands of looking after the elderly.

The robot suit, developed by Professor Hiroshi Kobayashi from Tokyo University, has already helped elderly Japanese live independent and self-sufficient lives.

The device is strapped around the back and under the arms to make lifting heavy weights easy for humans.

“It will help elderly [people] work for longer and help them in the home so it will have a significant economic impact,” Professor Kobayashi said.

Japan wants to increase the use of robots twenty-fold in just five years, with hopes the next industrial revolution – after the internet age – will arrive first in their country.

Time To Redraw The World Map in Global Manufacturing Competitiveness: Mexico, US, UK Are Rising Stars

Posted By Paul Tate, August 26

If you still think the world is split into traditional high-cost production locations in the developed economies of the West, and low-cost locations in the emerging economies of the East, it may be time to think again.

According to a new report from the Boston Consulting Group (BCG), which analyses the cost structures of 25 leading export economies around the world in terms of wages, productivity, energy prices and exchange rates, many of these traditional manufacturing industry assumptions are now obsolete.

“The new map increasingly resembles a quilt-work pattern of low-cost economies, high-cost economies, and many that fall in between, spanning all regions,” says the BCG report.

For example, Mexico is now a cheaper location than China to make things on a unit-cost basis; the U.K. is now the most cost-effective place to manufacture in Europe; Brazil has become one of the world’s most expensive production locations; while Russia and other East European economies are now almost on a par with the U.S. in terms of manufacturing costs.

Shifting-Economics-Glb-Mfg-ex1_inline_tcm80-167414.png

‘These dramatic changes in relative costs could drive a large shift in the global economy as companies are prompted to reassess their manufacturing footprints,” suggests the report. “One implication is that global manufacturing could become increasingly regional. Because relatively low-cost manufacturing centers exist in all regions of the world, more goods consumed in Asia, Europe, and the Americas will be made closer to home.”

The good news for the U.S. is that, “Cost structures in Mexico and the U.S. improved more than in all of the other 25 largest exporting economies,” concludes BCG. “Because of low wage growth, sustained productivity gains, stable exchange rates, and a big energy-cost advantage, these two nations are the current rising stars of global manufacturing.”

]]>https://aseaneconomist.wordpress.com/2014/11/24/global-manufacturing-competitiveness-mexico-us-uk-are-rising-stars-and-japan-pin-hope-on-robotics/feed/020120725-headthaiintelligentnewsAPEC? American and European Union chambers of commerce in China, said they felt increasingly unwelcomehttps://aseaneconomist.wordpress.com/2014/11/24/apec-american-and-european-union-chambers-of-commerce-in-china-member-corporations-said-they-felt-increasingly-unwelcome/
https://aseaneconomist.wordpress.com/2014/11/24/apec-american-and-european-union-chambers-of-commerce-in-china-member-corporations-said-they-felt-increasingly-unwelcome/#respondMon, 24 Nov 2014 12:30:54 +0000http://aseaneconomist.wordpress.com/?p=924In surveys released earlier this year by American and European Union chambers of commerce in China, member corporations said they felt increasingly unwelcome, believed they are unfairly targeted by recent antimonopoly and anticorruption campaigns and have struggled with mounting labor costs, rising political risk and opaque rules.

The EU Chamber said that its members lost out on 21.3 billion euros in revenue last year due to market access limitations and regulatory barriers.

Economic nationalism is a body of policies that emphasize domestic control of the economy, labor, and capital formation, even if this requires the imposition of tariffs and other restrictions on the movement of labor, goods and capital.

As China hosts its biggest international economic summit in years, the chiefs of multinational corporations attending the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum are putting on their game face and using the occasion to publicly underscore their faith in the world’s second largest economy.

Executives spoke on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum on Sunday and Monday, lauding developments like its e-commerce boom and progress in nurturing a growing consumer culture. Many multinationals still rely on China as a key market for growth, which remains a steadfast source of growth in markets ranging from cars to pharmaceuticals.

But many foreign businesses have endured a difficult year in China. A growing list of companies have faced regulatory scrutiny. Many are still grappling with the effects of China in the throes of an economic transition, as it tries to balance breakneck growth with growing worries about the environment and other social issues.

China will continue to be a key driver of Wal-Mart Stores Inc.’sWMT +0.08% international sales in the next few years, said Wal-Mart’s head of Asia and international strategy, Scott Price. Other corporate chiefs interviewed by The Wall Street Journal, including Eli Lilly & Co. Chief Executive John C. Lechleiter and Rio Tinto PLC Chief Executive Sam Walsh, say China will continue to grow and its slowdown should be taken in stride.

“What China calls a slowdown, the rest of the world would love to be able to experience,” Mr. Lechleiter said.

Despite China’s efforts to shift its economic focus toward consumerism and away from big-ticket construction projects, Mr. Walsh maintained that it was an opportunity to reorient the company toward providing commodities to make cars, refrigerators and other consumer products.

For Rio, the days of acrimonious squabbles with China over iron ore pricing have largely faded in the past four years, since the development of spot pricing system for the steelmaking material, of which China is the world’s largest importer. But other companies are still wading through a thicket of Chinese regulation, and say the corporate climate is getting increasingly difficult.

U.S. President Barack Obama, speaking at APEC on his trip to Beijing Monday, urged China to level its playing field for its businesses, develop policies protecting intellectual property, and reject commercially-driven cyber-security breaches. “Foreign companies must be treated fairly so they can compete fairly with Chinese companies,” Mr. Obama said.

In surveys released earlier this year by American and European Union chambers of commerce in China, member corporations said they felt increasingly unwelcome, believed they are unfairly targeted by recent antimonopoly and anticorruption campaigns and have struggled with mounting labor costs, rising political risk and opaque rules.

The EU Chamber said that its members lost out on 21.3 billion euros in revenue last year due to market access limitations and regulatory barriers.

Businesses are moderating their optimism about the future in China, said John Lenhart, Director and Chief Representative of trade group US-China Business Council’s Beijing office. “The reason that is policy uncertainty,” said Mr. Lenhart.

Chinese authorities have over the past three years fined Wal-Mart $9.8 million, sanctioning the retailer for using misleading pricing, selling poor-quality products and even peddling donkey meat that turned out to be fox. The Bentonville, Ark. retailer is also feeling the pinch of China’s austerity campaign, as sales of gift cards and mooncakes drop.

Lilly executives said the China has yet to fully address some underlying problems that pose compliance risks for the healthcare industry–such as low doctor wages and an unconsolidated market of wholesalers.

Despite the uncertainties, China for many corporations is not a matter of choice. It remains a big bet for their future growth.

Wal-Mart’s Mr. Price said he is optimistic about the future of reform in China. Qualcomm, which has been under scrutiny in China for allegedly breaking antimonopoly law to sell its high-tech chips, announced Monday plans to open a mobile-health innovation center in the country.

Rio’s Mr. Walsh also remains bullish even as a Chinese slowdown has helped take iron ore prices down about 40% from the start of the year, to their lowest level in five years. Mr. Walsh contends that even China’s efforts to combat pollution, long thought to be a long-term bearish drag on iron ore, will play well for the kind of clean-burning ore that Rio has an edge in producing, he said. “They need high-quality iron ore to combat pollution, to reduce the amount of energy that’s used, the amount of slag that’s produced.”

China will likely help the coal-market rebound next year, said Greg Boyce, chief executive of Peabody Energy Corp. , the largest U.S. coal producer by output. Mr. Boyce, in an interview on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in Beijing, said a U.S.-led boom in shale-gas production didn’t pose a challenge to coal’s position as the world’s dominant source of energy by far, and said Chinese coal demand would continue to rise despite pledges by Beijing to reduce reliance on coal usage to cut pollution.

At APEC, it fell to Chinese companies to express concern about the direction of economic policy in their own country. Dalian Wanda Group Chairman Wang Jianlin said that in China’s attempt to overhaul its own companies and create a market-driven economy, there should be a greater push for profitability.

The chairman of Fosun Group, a Chinese investment company akin to Warren Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway, said that the government relies too heavily on real estate to propel the economy. “If we can’t solve this vicious cycle, then our risk is too high,” said Fosun Chairman Guo Guangchang, speaking at summit talk on the future of business in China.

– Laurie Burkitt, Chuin-Wei Yap and Brian Spegele

Economic nationalism is a body of policies that emphasize domestic control of the economy, labor, and capital formation, even if this requires the imposition of tariffs and other restrictions on the movement of labor, goods and capital. In many cases, economic nationalists oppose globalization or at least question the benefits of unrestricted free trade. Economic nationalism may include such doctrines as protectionism and import substitution.

The reason for a policy of economic protectionism in the cases above varied from bid to bid, In the case of Mittal’s bid for Arcelor, the primary concerns involved job security for the Arcelor employees based in France and Luxembourg. The cases of French Suez and Spanish Endesa involved the desire for respective European governments to create a ‘national champion’ capable of competing at both a European and global level. Both the French and US government used national security as the reason for opposing takeovers of Danone, Unocal, and the bid by DP World for 6 US ports. In none of the examples given above was the original bid deemed to be against the interests of competition. In many cases the shareholders supported the foreign bid. For instance in France after the bid for Suez by Enel was counteracted by the French public energy and gas company Gaz De France the shareholders of Suez complained and the unions of Gaz De France were in an uproar because of the privatization of their jobs.

Economic patriotism is the coordinated and promoted behaviour of consumers or companies (both private and public) that consists of favoring the goods or services produced in their country or in their group of countries. Economic patriotism can be practiced either through demand stimulation (encouraging consumers to purchase the goods and services of their own country) or through supply protection, the shielding of the domestic market from foreign competition through tariffs or quotas (protectionism). A recently emerging form of economic patriotism is financial protectionism, the hostility against acquisitions by foreign groups of companies considered of “strategic value”[9] for the economy of the country.

The objective is to support economic activity and promote social cohesion. The supporters of economic patriotism describe it as a kind of self-defence of local economic interests (national or European in case of the countries of the European Union). Some manifestations of economic patriotism are attempts to block foreign competition or acquisitions of domestic companies. An often cited example is France, where economic patriotism was the main rationale used in the Pepsico-Danone, Mittal-Arcelor, and GDF-Suez affairs.

In the United States, an example of economic patriotism would be the numerous bumper stickers: “Be American, Buy American”.

Consumer preference for local goods gives local producers more market power, affording them the ability to lift prices to extract greater profits. Firms that produce locally produced goods can charge a premium for that good. Consumers who favor products by local producers may end up being exploited by profit-maximizing local producers.[10] For example; a protectionist policy in America placed tariffs on foreign cars, giving local producers (Ford and GM market) market power that allowed them to raise the price of cars, which negatively affected American consumers who faced fewer choices and higher prices.[11]

Locally produced goods can attract a premium if consumers show a preference towards it, so firms have an incentive to pass foreign goods off as local goods if foreign goods have cheaper costs of production than local goods.[10] This is a viable strategy because the line between foreign-made and locally-made is blurry. However as supply chains expand globally, the definition of local goods becomes hazy. For example, while a particular car may be assembled in America, its engine may be made in another country such as China. Furthermore, while the engine may be made in China, the engine’s components may be imported from several other countries: the pistons may come from Germany and the spark plugs may come from Mexico. The components that make up the spark plugs and pistons may come from different countries and so on.

]]>https://aseaneconomist.wordpress.com/2014/11/24/apec-american-and-european-union-chambers-of-commerce-in-china-member-corporations-said-they-felt-increasingly-unwelcome/feed/020101125-mainthaiintelligentnewsThe Tyranny of SE Asia’s Establishment & Singapore’s Lim Hng Kiang ASEAN AEChttps://aseaneconomist.wordpress.com/2014/11/24/asean-economic-prospect-amid-the-tyranny-of-se-asias-establishment-the-start-of-an-asian-spring/
https://aseaneconomist.wordpress.com/2014/11/24/asean-economic-prospect-amid-the-tyranny-of-se-asias-establishment-the-start-of-an-asian-spring/#respondMon, 24 Nov 2014 06:57:35 +0000http://aseaneconomist.wordpress.com/?p=922Around the second quarter of the year, many analyst, including me, were beginning to become very worried about the prospect for Thailand. Globally, there were mainly two school of thoughts, one, Thailand is heading into a crisis and another, everything is OK, and it is business as usual. The business as usual crowd was spearheaded by the likes of Mark Mobius and money pumped into the Thai stock market, expecting Thailand’s GDP to hit around 3% this year. Now, towards the end of the year, Thailand’s GDP for this year is expected to be below 1%. Those that saw problem ahead for Thailand, earlier in the year, cited, mostly, a Thai traditional elite, going out of control with the Dictator and junta it created, along with serious problems for Thailand on, Geo-Politics, Geo-National Security and Geo-Economics. Also, I started a conversation, quite a while back, about “Sustainability.” My argument was mainly, without real and genuine democracy and human rights, economic development can not be sustained.

If forecasts are anything to go by, Asia will account for two thirds of the global middle class population in 2030. Whereas investors and businesses already did the math and are waiting in line to capitalize on rapidly expanding consumer markets, political analysts are only slowly beginning to grasp what the rise of Asia’s middle class means for governments in the region, especially in non-democratic countries.

Will the middle class demand more democracy, representative government, and a greater say in the running of their countries? Or will it remain satisfied with one-party states, military regimes, or elected autocrats, as long as the economy grows and their material needs are satisfied?

Note: The BTI uses five criteria to measure a country’s democracy status: stateness, political participation, rule of law, stability of democratic institutions, and political and social integration. The size of a bubble represents the size of a country’s population.
Sources: Middle-class population (in percent): “Development, Aid and Governance Indicators (DAGI)”, Brookings Institution, 2012; Democracy status: BTI 2014, http://www.bti-project.org; Population data as of 2012: World Development Indicators of the World Bank; Taiwan: Directorate General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics.

What seems clear is that a substantial middle-income population does not translate into a healthier state of democracy in any straightforward manner. The size of the middle class and the state of political transformationbased on the Bertelsmann Stiftung’s Transformation Index (BTI) appear to be only loosely correlated in selected Asian countries. In relative terms, Indonesia’s middle-income population is half the size of Thailand’s, but democracy has fared much better in Indonesia than in the kingdom on the Southeast Asian mainland.

The answer to the question what political role the middle class will play depends on which middle class one looks at, at least in Southeast Asia. The term is therefore better used in the plural, i.e. middle classes, to reflect their internal diversity. This diversity goes a long way toward explaining not just the class dynamics of Southeast Asian societies but the rocky political paths that some countries in the region have recently taken. Thailand and Indonesia are cases in point.

2014 was a decisive year for both nations. Thailand experienced yet another wave of violent protests, whichculminated in another military coup, while Indonesia held a peaceful presidential election, which nevertheless revealed a political rift in the country. In both states, political developments were affected not primarily by tensions between the extreme ends of society, but within the growing middle of the societal hierarchy.

It may seem odd to compare two seemingly disparate places like Thailand and Indonesia, the former being ruled by a bizarre and reactionary military junta and the latter by a democratically elected president who ran on a progressive ticket. In fact, in recent months analysts have started to hold up Indonesia as the new beacon of democracy in the region, contrasting it with Thailand’s constant slide into the political abyss.

It is easy to agree with such an analysis if one compares the rational and humble nature of Indonesian president Joko “Jokowi” Widodo with the clumsy exploits of Thailand’s military dictator Prayuth Chan-ocha. But this means forgetting how narrowly Indonesia escaped a return to its authoritarian past, the so-called New Order, in the presidential elections: Almost half of Indonesian voters risked a return to the New Order by supporting the controversial candidate Prabowo Subianto, who promised a firm dictatorial grip. And even though Prabowo was the losing candidate, parties backing him still dominate the parliament and began an assault on democracy in September by trying to scrap direct elections at the local level.

In search of explanations for the polarization in both countries, it is important to look beyond a simple poor-vs.-rich dichotomy. Media reports suggested that it was not primarily the poor and uneducated parts of Indonesian society who supported Prabowo – quite the opposite. In the weeks before the elections, Jokowi had to work particularly hard to woo the urban-based and supposedly rationally minded middle class to secure his victory. While voters with only a primary-school level of education were mostly backing Jokowi, those with a university degree and a monthly income of more than two million Indonesian rupiah (US$165) had been shifting their support to Prabowo.

It appears as if it their nostalgia for the good old days of effective authoritarianism, and their disenchantment with a corruption-prone democracy, almost led to Indonesia’s democratic demise. Anti-democratic protests in Thailand were likewise driven by an urban-based middle class with fond memories of a time when Thai generals ruled the kingdom in tandem with the monarchy. Democratic support, in contrast, seemed to come from members of the emerging lower middle class in the provinces.

The historic trajectory of Southeast Asia is key here. In the second half of the 20th century, developmental regimes throughout the region fostered the emergence of a middle class that owed its existence to these authoritarian states. Middle-class identities were not shaped in a democratic setting or in resistance to government interference, but in the context of a symbiotic relationship with it. Only when this arrangement started to fail, particularly in the wake of the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, when the frailty of technocratic efficiency and top-down development became obvious, did the middle class help overthrow authoritarianism.

But as the region’s economies expanded again and captured people at the margins, a new and aspiring middle class stirred suspicions among the established one, with its sentimental ties to the old developmental regimes. While the newcomers considered democracy a useful tool to secure for themselves a slice of the national cake, the established middle class – relatively small in numbers and therefore insecure – grew more defensive. Its members had simply not learned how to share. These middle-class reactionaries again supported authoritarians like the royalist generals in Thailand and the New Order lackey Prabowo in Indonesia, thereby reversing, or endangering, democratic progress and the material improvement of their new fellow class members.

The “Tyranny of the Old Middle” has succeeded in destroying democratic institutions in Thailand. Indonesians narrowly averted this fate for now by electing Jokowi, although his winning margin was, as already noted, far from impressive. It is the Old Middle that Jokowi and other democrats in Southeast Asia have to convince of the need for greater solidarity and democratic governance.

2014 has been an historic year for protests in Asia, where until now political freedom has lagged economic growth.

By Nithin Coca

Nithin Coca is a freelance writer and journalist who focuses on cultural, economic, and environmental issues in developing countries. Follow him on Twitter @excinit.

November 20, 2014

In Hong Kong, it’s a yellow umbrella. In Taiwan, the similarly bright sunflower. Thailand pitted yellow-shirts against red-shirts, while in Indonesia, it is the national colors red and white painted on faces or plastered on signs. In South Korea, it is more subtle – small, yellow ribbons and flags. Together, these symbols of different yet connected movements have turned 2014 into a banner year for protests in many rapidly growing and changing countries in East and Southeast Asia, and may foreshadow coming change in the region.

At a glance, Occupy Central in Hong Kong or the hunger strikes by families connected with the Sewol ferry disaster in South Korea may seem focused on specific concerns, relevant only to the people in that society. However, take a step back and the movements are, surprisingly, quite similar. Occupy’s focus is on Hong Kong gaining its long-promised democracy, but it is fueled by living costs, limited infrastructure, and rising inequality – the same challenges facing Indonesia and Thailand. In Seoul, initially it seems that protestors in the city center want justice for the hundreds of victims of Sewol. But what they are calling for – an investigation into what they see as deeply ingrained corruption and collusion connecting the ferry company, the police, politicians, and perhaps even the president – has implications that go far beyond a simple criminal case.

Thailand also saw similar slogans about corruption at both red-shirt and yellow-shirt rallies. “In [Thailand and Hong Kong] protesters are calling for accountability and greater transparency in the political and economic realms,” said Matteo Fumagalli, head of the Department of International Relations at Central European University.

The most dramatic protests took place this March in Taiwan, where youth stormed past police barricades and occupied the Taiwanese Parliament, in opposition to a trade deal with China that they believed with erode the island-state’s independent political identity.

Individually they are examples of social unrest, but collectively, do these movements herald something greater? Are they an Asian version of 2011, when protests in Tunisia spread into neighboring Egypt, Libya, and then throughout the entire Arab region. At the time it was seen as a sign that the Arab world’s citizens were tired of the same-old dictators and wanted dramatic societal change. Asia, too, faces a similar “Democracy Gap.” “In some countries in the region the growth of democracy has not kept pace with economic development. It seems clear that economic progress alone does not necessarily lead to democratic gains,” said Peter Manikas, director of Asia programs for the New Democratic Institute in Washington D.C.

It is not only political institutions that have lagged. Corruption remains high, and media freedom has actually regressed, as Reporters without Borders, a France-based NGO, noted in its 2013 and 2014 World Press Freedom Indexes. This year, only Taiwan was ranked as having a “satisfactory” media environment; while countries like Japan, Thailand, Hong Kong, and South Korea have seen their rankings drop, some dramatically.

So why now? Several factors are present. Economic growth in several countries has not been evenly distributed – the GINI coefficient, which roughly measures inequality, has risen substantially in the past decade in Hong Kong, Indonesia, China, and Thailand. A higher coefficient means greater inequality, and according to a report released by the OECD, if Asia was taken as a whole, its GINI coefficient would have risen from .39 to .46 from 2001, a stark contrast to the dips seen over the same period in numerous South American and African countries at similar development levels. A number above .4 is the level used by analysts to gauge the potential for social unrest – the very unrest we are now seeing in the region. It should come as no surprise that Hong Kong, one of the world’s richest economies per capita, has a GINI coefficient above .53, making it one of the 15 most unequal societies in the world.

The cost of living is also rising, and there is a greater awareness of the negative role of corruption in society – an issue regularly cited as one of the top concerns of citizens all across the region. Younger generations are especially effected, as they find that the social services and safety nets available to their parents may no longer exist when they are ready to use them.

China is the other elephant in the room. Twenty-five years after students protestors at Tiananmen Square were driven out by military force, the country remains authoritarian, and thus far there is no major or nationwide protest movement taking place within its borders. But it is China’s growing influence that is a focal point for protests in Taiwan and, more recently, in Hong Kong, where 16 years of reunification has yet to forge the common identity that Beijing had sought. Even in South Korea, protestors have cited the recently announced free trade deal with China as an example of President Park Park Geun-hye’s incessant and questionable collusion with business, and her disregard for the interests of regular Koreans.

In fact, in two of the countries where protests have played out this year, we can see clearly two directions that this “Asian Spring” could take. In Thailand, the stand-off between yellow-shirt protestors, who wanted an overthrow of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra’s administration for alleged corruption, and more populist, pro-Thaksin (the former prime minister deposed in 2006) red-shirts, led to a military coup this May. The military-led, constitution-less government has subsequently taken steps to curb public debate, media freedom, and citizen power. This is contrasted with what happened in Indonesia (a fellow ASEAN member-state), where a bill in August to remove direct elections for regional positions – a blatant attempt to entrench political power – passed by the outgoing parliament that was governed by a coalition of parties dominated by the old guard, was followed by a massive public backlash that led outgoing President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono to issue a law annulling the bill.

In one country populism and civic engagement won. In another the old-guard maintained and even strengthened their grip on society. It is the same battle being fought right now in Hong Kong and South Korea, and it is bubbling beneath the surface in China and Japan.

Albert Goldson, an Asia analyst with Indo-Brazilian Associates, a New York City global advisory firm and think tank, cautions against comparing what’s happening in Asia too closely with what happened in the Arab world three years ago. The vast geographic, cultural, and economic differences between OECD members South Korea and Japan, Hong Kong’s hybrid status, and still developing Indonesia and Thailand make comparisons challenging; and despite the common issues, there has been little linkage or communication between the youth leaders in each country. The analogy is overly simplistic – these are two vastly different parts of the world.

Victor Louzon, a Fox Fellow and expert in East Asian history at Yale University, agrees; believing that for Hong Kong, this battle will not be won in the short-term. “Future political evolutions will depend on [Hong Kong’s] capacity and will to mobilize every time Beijing encroaches on political freedom, and to mobilize periodically in favor of genuine elections, because that would raise the political cost for the Chinese government.”

Perhaps that is a good thing. In the Arab world today, the euphoria of 2011 has been transmogrified into a horrific civil war in Syria, military rule in Egypt, and continued fragility in Libya. Only Tunisia – that initial spark – seems to have emerged as a democracy, and many observers are unsure if even that will remain in the years to come.

Unlike 2011, the 2014 Asian Spring is focused not on building revolutions to sweep aside old powers, but to bring concrete changes to society and increase the ability of citizens to have their say. An Asia that is more responsive to its citizens is undoubtedly good for the world, which will be watching closely to see if the region follows the direction of Thailand, which entrenched old power, or instead moves towards Indonesia’s model of an enlarged, active, civic sphere. Whatever happens, the impact will be felt around the world.

Nithin Coca is a freelance writer and journalist who focuses on cultural, economic, and environmental issues in developing countries. Follow him on Twitter @excinit.

The following is from The News Room at Financial Times ASEAN Economic Summit 2014 (Source)

Good morning. Allow me to first thank the Financial Times for inviting me to speak at this forum.

Since its founding in 1888, the Financial Times has been known to provide credible, accurate and timely content for the global business community. This new ASEAN Economic Summit is an excellent initiative. It is taking place at an important juncture for our region, as concrete plans are being advanced to achieve an ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) by 2015.

My remarks this morning will focus on the prospects for ASEAN economies, the state of ASEAN’s community building and integration efforts, as well as its importance in enhancing the regional growth potential.

ASEAN: The New Frontier for Growth

First, an overview of ASEAN’s growth potential. As a region, ASEAN is a large and important market with significant opportunities. We have a growing population of 620 million people, and make-up the third largest combined GDP in Asia – at US$2.3 trillion in 2013.

ASEAN is currently one of the most dynamic and fastest-growing regions in the world. From 2002-2012, ASEAN grew at an average of 6 percent, compared to the global average of 4 percent, which is quite commendable.

Demographic trends are positive for most countries in the region. The young population and growing workforce are supporting healthy domestic demand. ASEAN’s combined labour force is the third largest in the world, behind China and India. In contrast to the rest of Asia where the labour force is expected to shrink, ASEAN’s young working-age population continues to grow at a fairly strong pace. Around 60 percent of ASEAN’s current population is made up of those below 35 years old.

An accompanying trend is the rising prominence of a wealthy middle class, which is helping to drive their countries’ per capita income growth. The Philippines, for example, took just 7 years to double its per capita GDP from US$1,660 to US$3,270. Experts forecast that Indonesia too, will see its share of private consumption rise from 56 percent in 2012 to 65 percent in 2030. Looking ahead, strong domestic demand will continue to underpin ASEAN countries’ GDP growth. This makes ASEAN an investment bright-spot that one should not overlook.

Thus, besides domestic demand, another important growth driver for the region is foreign direct investment (FDI). For the past three years, FDI flows into ASEAN have exceeded those into China. In 2013, the five biggest economies in Southeast Asia received US$128.4 billion in foreign investment, outstripping FDI into China for the first time.

ASEAN’s proximity to major markets such as China and India reinforces its status as a crucial global value chain player and a preferred production base for many multinational corporations. In the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s “ASEAN Business Outlook Survey 2015”, 66 percent of respondents said that ASEAN markets will become more important for their companies’ worldwide revenue over the next two years. Meanwhile, 89 percent expect their companies’ levels of trade and investment in ASEAN to increase over the next 5 years. These are positive signs that ASEAN has become a new frontier for growth.

Growth Prospects of Key Southeast Asian Economies

The growth prospects of key Southeast Asian economies give us added reason for optimism. The average GDP growth of the 10 ASEAN countries in the last five years has ranged from 2.9 percent for Thailand to 5.9 percent for Vietnam and Indonesia. There are a few rising stars contributing to ASEAN’s growth story.

Top on the list is Myanmar, which has embarked on a momentous journey to reform its economy and strengthen its financial sector. Coupled with its strategic location at the intersection of China and India, a generous endowment of natural resources, and a large, youthful and literate population, Myanmar is poised to be the next economic frontier in Asia.

The Philippines too, has achieved much in the last decade. It has sustained strong growth and macroeconomic stability, both of which have contributed to a vastly improved business climate. It has moved up significantly in the 2014 World Economic Forum (WEF) Global Competitiveness Report, advancing six positions to rank 59 out of 148 economies. Most expert projections see the Philippine economy continuing to grow at over 6 percent for the next three years – in other words, adding about a fifth to the country’s existing wealth by 2016.

Growth prospects for other Southeast Asian economies are also promising. Malaysia and Vietnam are on track to achieve healthy growth in 2014, growing at approximately 5.5 percent and 5.8 percent respectively. According to the World Bank, Indonesia is likely to rank ahead of Japan as the world’s 4th largest economy by 2050, behind China, the US and India. In addition to its abundant natural resources, Indonesia’s demographic dividend, increasing urbanisation coupled with a corresponding rise in investment is expected to drive long-term growth.

Journey towards integration is well on course

ASEAN’s ability to fully realise its potential depends fundamentally on our efforts in regional integration. Most ASEAN countries are too small individually to be game changers in the global market. But as an integrated region, we can benefit by leveraging our collective strength in responding to external challenges.

We stand today on the brink of very exciting times for ASEAN as we draw closer to the vision of an ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) in 2015. If the AEC vision was aspirational when it was first conceived, it is now an imperative. This has prompted an increased momentum in efforts to realise a truly integrated and competitive region. With close to 80 percent of prioritised measures identified for 2013 already implemented, the journey towards an AEC is well on course.

Significant advancements have been made towards creating a tariff-free zone for ASEAN products. Today, close to 90 percent of products enjoy zero import duties under the ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement (ATIGA). As a result of initiatives to increase transparency and reduce non-tariff barriers (NTBs), businesses can now operate in a relatively stable and predictable environment.

For trade in services, the 10th package of commitments under the ASEAN Framework Agreement on Services (AFAS) is set to be completed by 2015. Under each package, ASEAN countries commit to opening up more services sectors for other Member States. What this means is that businesses can expect a progressive reduction of services barriers, such as foreign equity limits in the ASEAN countries.

On the investment front, stronger and pro-business investment rules via the ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement (ACIA) will enhance protection for investors in ASEAN, generate more opportunities for investment through liberalisation of sectors, provide greater transparency on investment rules, and offer recourse to investors in times of conflict.

ASEAN countries are examining ways to converge and harmonise the many regulations, standards and procedures in our countries through Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRAs). To-date, two MRAs have been developed and are currently being implemented – the ASEAN Sectoral MRA on Electrical and Electronic Equipment (EEMRA) and the ASEAN MRA on Good Manufacturing Practice for Inspection of Manufacturers of Medicinal Products (GMP MRA). Three more MRAs are being negotiated in the automotives, prepared foodstuff and building and construction materials.

Work under the other pillars of the AEC is ongoing to lay the foundation for integration in newer areas, such as competition policy, taxation, infrastructure development, e-commerce, and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR).

Over the next one year, ASEAN will step up our efforts to realise the high-impact action plans. These include addressing NTBs, realising the customs single window, as well as deepening services and investment liberalisation. “Behind-the-border” issues such as improving trade facilitation and harmonising standards and conformance will also be placed at the forefront of ASEAN’s economic agenda. These remaining issues are challenging, but will offer the most benefits for our businesses and peoples.

Deepening integration as the only way forward

Overall, ASEAN is moving in the right direction towards greater economic integration. However, the challenges facing ASEAN have also grown in tandem. ASEAN countries recognised the need to build stronger, more lasting economic connections, both within our region, and with the outside world.

Why do we need to work so hard for closer integration? The first is simply that we do not have a choice. To remain an effective and efficient organisation in a rapidly changing world, ASEAN needs to work together to tackle emerging, cross-border challenges such as: (a) climate change; (b) inclusive growth; (c) environmental sustainability; and (d) territorial disputes.

Despite impressive economic growth in most parts of the region, millions of people are still entrenched in poverty. Income inequality has grown in some countries, while the benefits of development have continued to bypass many.

More effort has to be made to tackle the region’s declining natural resources. ASEAN cannot continue to build its economic wealth just by exploiting its natural resources alone.

Tensions rising from territorial disputes and political strains in some of our Member States will also need to be carefully managed.

The second reason for enhanced integration is a strategic one – creating a more united and cohesive organisation so that we are favourably positioned as the basis of the evolving regional architecture. This is where ASEAN has an opportunity to play a constructive role, as we provide a neutral core around which we can develop the regional architecture with our Dialogue Partners.

As the saying goes, “a chain is only as strong as its weakest link”. ASEAN’s viability and progress as an economic community is also dependent on how well each Member State’s development strategy syncs up with another. By developing complementary development strategies, we can reap the benefits of stronger regional supply chains, thereby presenting a more compelling value proposition for investors and better jobs for our people.

To be sure, while there will always be differing national priorities and perspectives, we should manage these differences in a constructive manner. We would do better to exchange ideas and share best practices on how our governments tackle domestic economic challenges, such as improving job quality, enhancing skills development, or boosting productivity and wages. As a cohesive region, we can achieve more together.

Integration beyond the region

For ASEAN to remain competitive in a globalised world, integration cannot stop at ASEAN’s borders. This is why even as we pursue deeper internal integration, ASEAN will continue to explore ways to strengthen our economic engagement with Dialogue Partners. One of the ways we try to do so is by reviewing and enhancing our existing FTAs with key trading partners and also commencing new FTA negotiations.

The on-going negotiations of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership or RCEP are a defining point in ASEAN’s endeavour towards deeper integration beyond the region. The RCEP will bring ASEAN and its six FTA partners in closer economic linkages with each other, and will integrate a third of the world’s GDP and over three billion people, or 45 percent of the world’s population.

The RCEP goes beyond the existing five ASEAN Plus One FTAs in its coverage of both traditional and newer trade issues such as competition policy and intellectual property. In taking the lead to launch the RCEP with our FTA partners, ASEAN is undertaking an unprecedented commitment to further integrate our economies into the global value chain. ASEAN will continue to exercise leadership as Parties work towards concluding the RCEP by the end of 2015.

We are not alone in seeing the value of pursuing trade liberalisation and reform through FTAs. The ongoing negotiations of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the trilateral China-Japan-Korea FTA are significant regional integration efforts. Many of their members are major trading partners of ASEAN. These initiatives offer the prospect of still larger integration with ASEAN.

The RCEP and the TPP, for example, could provide a possible pathway to a Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific or FTAAP. If realised, the creation of the FTAAP will be a monumental step for the region and a leap for global trade reform, in reaffirmation of the multilateral trading system. Both architectures are open and inclusive to whichever economic partners ready to meet the individual benchmarks as set by its parties.

Developing Integration efforts beyond 2015

While 2015 will be a significant milestone for the AEC, it will not mark the end of ASEAN’s integration efforts. The current Blueprint alone is no longer sufficient for the organisation to retain its relevance in a fast changing world. ASEAN’s continued vitality and success will hinge on Member States’ willingness to embrace further changes and deepen regional economic integration beyond 2015.

In developing its post-2015 vision, ASEAN needs to take into account global mega trends, while staying ahead of the curve, so as to improve prospects for our countries and peoples. The post-2015 vision for the AEC will therefore comprise not only the enhancement of current ASEAN platforms and initiatives, but also include newer areas and priorities. One of the key objectives would be to allow ASEAN countries to move up the development ladder in an inclusive and sustainable manner, and to enhance ASEAN’s centrality in regional and global architectures.

Conclusion

Let me now conclude. ASEAN’s efforts at economic integration have helped to anchor ASEAN’s relevance to the world. It has also been instrumental in creating more opportunities for businesses operating in the region. ASEAN must sustain this good momentum and build on the positive inroads made.

ASEAN has consistently been Singapore’s most important market and largest trading partner accounting for about a quarter of Singapore’s trade with the world. Singapore remains committed to the ASEAN vision of deepening regional integration, as a free and open regional and global economy is an important part of the Singapore growth story. I am confident that ASEAN can fulfil most of our 2015 targets and beyond.

On this note, I wish you a fruitful session ahead. Thank you.

]]>https://aseaneconomist.wordpress.com/2014/11/24/asean-economic-prospect-amid-the-tyranny-of-se-asias-establishment-the-start-of-an-asian-spring/feed/0globalcompetthaiintelligentnewsUp-Dated > Ivy League Dystopia: USA oldest college newspaper, Harvard Crimson, pull report critical of Thai juntahttps://aseaneconomist.wordpress.com/2014/08/20/totalitarian-dytopia-usa-oldest-college-newspaper-harvard-crimson-pull-report-critical-of-thai-junta/
https://aseaneconomist.wordpress.com/2014/08/20/totalitarian-dytopia-usa-oldest-college-newspaper-harvard-crimson-pull-report-critical-of-thai-junta/#respondWed, 20 Aug 2014 05:32:04 +0000http://aseaneconomist.wordpress.com/2014/08/20/totalitarian-dytopia-usa-oldest-college-newspaper-harvard-crimson-pull-report-critical-of-thai-junta/The Harvard Crimson, the USA’s oldest continuously published daily college newspaper, founded in 1873 and incorporated in 1967, had pulled a report critical of the Thai junta. The report is about the Thai junta raising funds for a Thai Study Center at Harvard University, called by the junta, a beach-head.

(Up-Dated) Harvard Crimson, said for the safety of its reporter, who was in Thailand, the report was pulled, after death threats, and after the reporter had left Thailand, the article was re-published.

The following is a statement from Harvard Crimson:

Troubles with Thai Studies

Editors’ Note: The article that previously appeared at this URL has been temporarily removed due to concerns about the personal safety of its author. The Crimson regrets having to take this action, which is in most cases in violation of our policies, but found the reasons for doing so overwhelming in this case. We expect to be able repost the article’s original text, at this URL, in the near future.

—Brian L. Cronin and Anja C. Nilsson, Editorial Chairs

—Samuel Y. Weinstock, President

About Harvard Crimson:

The Harvard Crimson is the only breakfast-table daily newspaper in Cambridge, Mass. The Crimson publishes every morning, Monday through Friday, except on federal and University holidays. In addition to the daily newspaper, The Crimson publishes an arts section on Tuesdays and Fifteen Minutes, the weekend magazine of The Crimson, on Thursdays. Our presses are also available for third-party contract printing. Call (617) 576-6600 for more information.

History of The Crimson

The Harvard Crimson, the nation’s oldest continuously published daily college newspaper, was founded in 1873 and incorporated in 1967. The newspaper traces its history to the first issue of “The Magenta,” published on Jan. 24, 1873, and changed its name to “The Crimson” to reflect the new color of the college on May 21, 1875. The Crimson has a rich tradition of journalistic integrity and counts among its ranks of editorship some of America’s greatest journalists. The faces of Pulitzer Prize-winning Crimson editors line the walls of The Crimson.

The Crimson is proud of its legacy of alumni active in journalism, business, public service, and politics. Past editors include Franklin D. Roosevelt, Class of 1904, John F. Kennedy ’40, J. Anthony Lewis ’48, David Halberstam ’55, Michael Crichton ’64, Don Graham ’65, Linda Greenhouse ’68, Steve Ballmer ’77, Jim Cramer ’77, Mark Whitaker ’79, Susan Chira ’80, and Jeff Zucker ’86. One hundred and forty years after its founding, having grown from a fortnightly newspaper to a daily, The Harvard Crimson continues to flourish with a strong body of undergraduate staff volunteers.

]]>https://aseaneconomist.wordpress.com/2014/08/20/totalitarian-dytopia-usa-oldest-college-newspaper-harvard-crimson-pull-report-critical-of-thai-junta/feed/0OL035U1W6Y_Angkor-Wat-Cambodia-alidarbacthaiintelligentnewsThaksin’s initiative, “A Mini-Asian-IMF” gets funding boostinghttps://aseaneconomist.wordpress.com/2014/07/28/the-mini-asian-imf-gets-funding-boosting/
https://aseaneconomist.wordpress.com/2014/07/28/the-mini-asian-imf-gets-funding-boosting/#respondMon, 28 Jul 2014 09:05:54 +0000http://aseaneconomist.wordpress.com/?p=918The attached ADB paper says: “The idea of the Asian bond market emerged first from Thailand in the summer of 2002. The creation of a bond market requires both issuers of bonds and investors in those bonds. The Thai initiative focused mainly on the investor side as then-Prime Minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, proposed that the members of ASEAN Plus Three contribute 1% of each country’s respective foreign exchange reserves to launch a regional fund to purchase Asian bonds.”

Taksin’s Asian Bonds is the first step towards a “Mini” Asian IMF, being the so called CMIM.

The move aimed to increase the region’s efficacy in financial cooperation to support each country’s cash flow in case there was a sudden short-term shortage of capital in one of the member countries. The CMIM fund was created after the Asian financial crisis in 1997 to increase the region’s financial cooperation. The finance ministers of member countries agreed on the creation of the fund on May 6, 2000, in Chiang Mai. The fund’s head office is in Singapore.

Recently members of Asean+3 and the Hong Kong Monetary Authority have agreed to double the Chiang Mai Initiative Multilateralisation fund to lower the risk of a sudden economic crisis and help prevent spill-over effects of future crises to other countries.

Asean+3, which includes China, Japan and South Korea, and the HKMA – the central bank of Hong Kong – had agreed to increase the CMIM fund from US$120 billion to $240 billion (Bt7.7 trillion), effective last week.

Local press reports the revised CMIM plan has been signed by all member countries but has only recently been signed by Thailand because of the dissolution of Parliament last December. The National Council for Peace and Order now has signed it.

There are 13 member countries in the fund. Before the agreed increase, its total reserve was $120 billion, including $746.5 million (20 per cent) from Asean countries. The contribution from China, Japan and South Korea was $3 billion (80 per cent). Countries that experience a sudden shortage of capital due to a crisis can allocate some of the CMIM fund according to previously agreed ratios.

Several local press reports the increase of the fund size means Thailand will have to provide $9.1 billion instead of $4.5 billion and the amount will be fronted by the BOT’s international reserves. If Thailand experiences a financial crisis and has cash-flow problems in the future, it will be able to receive financial help of 2.5 times its contribution to fund – $22.7 billion.

The revised CMIM plan has been signed by all member countries but has only recently been signed by Thailand because of the dissolution of Parliament last December.

Local reports the Thai junta (National Council for Peace and Order) has now has signed it.

Besides the increase of the fund size, there has also been an increase in the proportion of the fund that is not connected to the International Monetary Fund.

The CMIM fund was created after the Asian financial crisis in 1997 to increase the region’s financial cooperation. The finance ministers of member countries agreed on the creation of the fund on May 6, 2000, in Chiang Mai. The fund’s head office is in Singapore.

There are 13 member countries in the fund. Before yesterday’s agreed increase, its total reserve was $120 billion, including $746.5 million (20 per cent) from Asean countries. The contribution from China, Japan and South Korea was $3 billion (80 per cent).Countries that experience a sudden shortage of capital due to a crisis can allocate some of the CMIM fund according to previously agreed ratios.

In the aftermath of the Asian financial crisis, efforts to provide an institutional base for regional financial cooperation developed very quickly in East Asia. The experience of the crisis prompted these efforts, which aim to make sure that such a financial disaster will never happen again. Despite all three aspects of regional financial and monetary architecture being essential for securing maximum financial and monetary stability in the region, the emergency liquidity funding arrangement of currency swaps under the Chiang Mai Initiative (CMI) has become the most institutionalized, while the Asian Bond Market Initiative (ABMI) and Asian Bond Fund (ABF) are moving forward slowly and informally. There is currently very little movement in the area of monetary and currency cooperation in the form of an Asian Monetary Union or an Asian Currency Unit (ACU).

Both in terms of chronology and level of institutionalization, the CMI is the most well-established financial initiative in East Asia at the moment. As early as November 1997, the East Asian governments launched a regional framework in the context of Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Plus Three (Japan, PRC, and South Korea (hereafter Korea)) with the hope of dealing with financial emergencies. This framework became the core of the region’s emergency liquidity mechanism consisting of a network of mostly bilateral currency swap arrangements. The ASEAN Plus Three governments arrived at the basic agreement regarding this regional mechanism by May 2002.21 One component of the CMI is the expanded ASEAN Swap Agreement, a small regional currency swap facility that has existed among ASEAN members since 1977. The other, more recent components are the Bilateral Swap Arrangements and the repurchase arrangements between each member of the ASEAN Plus Three.22 The CMI has two basic objectives: the first is to provide emergency liquidity at a time of financial crisis, such as the Asian financial crisis. The second and longer-term goal is to enhance regional cooperation both in terms of currency stabilization and financial monitoring. As of June 2009, US$90 billion worth of swap lines have been committed by the participating monetary authorities.

In May 2009, the decision to multilateralize (i.e., regionalize) the CMI was finalized, and in the near future the funds already committed to bilateral swap lines will be pooled to create a potential for a much larger swap volume per use.23 The newly established CMIM (Chiang Mai Initiative Multilateralized) will consist of a multilateral private swap agreement among the member central banks with a pooled fund of US$120 billion. Through the multilateralization process, not only did the amount available for each swap expand, but it also allowed the ASEAN countries that were not incorporated into either the Bilateral Swap Arrangements or ASEAN Swap Agreement to become full members of the CMI process (namely Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, and Viet Nam). Despite the large amount of available funds and the image of the “revival” of the Asian Monetary Fund (AMF) proposed by the Japanese authority at the onset of the Asian financial crisis in the summer of 1997, there are two features that clearly distinguish the CMIM from the (relatively vaguely defined) AMF.

The first is the fact that the CMI so far has been a virtual institution. The recent agreement will lead the CMIM to establish a more formal institution to engage in the monitoring and surveillance of member countries in preparation for the activation of currency swaps, but it is unlikely that this will turn into a large standing institution, and nor does it consist of an actual pool of funds in the same way that the International Monetary Fund does. The currency swap arrangements are based on a contractual agreement among the central banks to activate those swaps based on their respective foreign exchange reserves as the CMIM receives requests.24 The other feature of the CMIM is the IMF-link as a condition to activate the currency swaps. This 90% link (i.e., 90% of the swap can only be activated when the IMF agreement is either negotiated or in place) was put in place at the establishment of the CMI due to the lack of a monitoring function under the ASEAN Plus Three framework. Without this link, deciding to activate a swap line and guaranteeing repayment becomes difficult.25 The explicit definition of the CMIM as a complementary liquidity funding mechanism within the international framework led by the IMF did not emerge solely from the lessons of the failed AMF,26 it was established to make sure that repayment on the part of borrowers is secured through international pressure. A regional monitoring and surveillance mechanism has also been developed through the search for a way to prevent a financial crisis from occurring, and if it does, the borrowers can be monitored closely. The financial ministries of the member governments have, since the start of the CMI process, worked on those functions in the form of a biannual meeting of the Economic Review and Policy Dialogue, but the CMIM has already promised to develop a more specific surveillance function to allow the advisory panel to activate the swaps.27

The current global financial crisis after the collapse of Lehman Brothers of September 2008 helped the multilateralization of the CMI by making the leading countries compromise on and commit to a common regional goal.28 Despite such regional success, however, the monetary authorities of the countries with large foreign exchange reserves, namely the PRC and Japan, have established their own respective bilateral swap arrangements using their own currency (yuan and yen) besides the CMIM.29

The ABMI, in the context of the ASEAN Plus Three, also directly addresses the regional need for financial stability, a lesson that unmistakably came from the Asian financial crisis. The Asian financial crisis revealed the financial vulnerability of the East Asian economies ranging from domestic financial weakness to an inefficient investment climate. The challenge of the double mismatch problem, which came about as East Asia borrowed short-term in dollars and invested long-term in assets denominated in their local currency, has imposed more costs and risks on the borrowers in East Asia. As a region with relatively high savings, there was an emerging sense that “surplus savings from East Asia [flowing] out of the region to Western financial markets and then return[ing] by way of loans to Asian borrowers…makes little economic sense” (Rowley 2003).

The idea of the Asian bond market emerged first from Thailand in the summer of 2002. The creation of a bond market requires both issuers of bonds and investors in those bonds. The Thai initiative focused mainly on the investor side as then-Prime Minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, proposed that the members of ASEAN Plus Three contribute 1% of each country’s respective foreign exchange reserves to launch a regional fund to purchase Asian bonds. The idea, which was discussed at the East Asia Economic Summit in Kuala Lumpur in October 2002, was developed and adopted by the Executives’ Meeting of East Asia Pacific Central Banks as they set up the ABF, which was formally announced in June of 2003. As the central banks of eleven Asia-Pacific countries (including Australia and New Zealand) pledged US$1 billion for the purchase of semi-sovereign and sovereign bonds from less advanced countries (i.e., not Japan, Australia, or New Zealand) in the region. At this stage, the bonds that this fund had purchased were all US dollar-denominated. In June 2005, however, as the second phase of the Asian Bond Fund (ABF2) was launched, the fund used US$2 billion to invest in bonds denominated in Asian currencies.30

On the other hand, the Japanese government from the early stage of the Asian bond discussion was interested in developing a regional and local bond market in East Asia with the focus on the issuers. As early as the time of the New Miyazawa Initiative (October 1998), the Ministry of Finance (MOF) was interested in supporting local bond market development to tap into local savings and avoid a heavy reliance on foreign capital. In December 2002, Japan officially proposed the idea of the ABMI at an ASEAN Plus Three meeting in Thailand. The aims of the ABMI are two-fold: to facilitate access to the market through a wider variety of issuers, and to enhance market infrastructure to foster bond markets in Asia (Ministry of Finance).31 Under this initiative, the Japan Bank for International Cooperation extends bond guarantees to local-currency denominated bonds. Six working groups under the ABMI umbrella are working to establish a market infrastructure including a regional bond-rating system.32 The Japanese government also extends technical assistance in the development of a local bond market in some ASEAN countries utilizing Japanese foreign aid. Furthermore, the new ABMI Roadmap, which includes an insurance mechanism, the facility to increase the demand of local currency-denominated bonds, an improved regulatory framework, and a related infrastructure for the bond markets, was endorsed at the 2008 Madrid meeting.

The currency and exchange rate arrangement (the other element of the double mismatch) constitutes the last necessary component of East Asia’s regional financial cooperation.

Because of high and increasing regional economic interdependence in the mid-1980s, the dollar–yen exchange rate volatility (e.g., the depreciation of the yen to the US dollar after the spring of 1995) also put pressure on many Asian economies in the 1990s. After the de-pegging of the baht in the summer of 1997, some East Asian countries, most of whose currencies used to be pegged one way or another to the US dollar, floated their currencies. Being highly dependent on their investment and trade, the East Asian governments were eager to see their exchange rates stabilize (Kuroda and Kawai 2004). As Japan’s first efforts to increase the use of the yen in the region did not bear much fruit, East Asia has gradually started to entertain the possibility of regional monetary cooperation, even of a monetary union.

As the first step towards the Asian Monetary Union, economists and policymakers in East Asia conducted a joint study with the European Union (the Kobe Research Group) that published its report in July of 2002 and recommended a monetary integration process for phase one (to be completed by 2010); preparation for a single currency for phase two (to be completed by 2030); and the launching of a single currency in phase three that would start in 2030 (Institute for International Monetary Affairs 2004). The second and most current initiative is related to the idea of the ACU, initially discussed in late 2005 by the newly expanded Office of Regional Economic Integration at the Asian Development Bank under the leadership of its then-director Masahiro Kawai, and the new Asian Development Bank president Haruhiko Kuroda. The proposed ACU models itself after the European Currency Unit that existed as the region’s currency unit before the introduction of the euro. The European Currency Unit constituted a unit of exchange based on the weighted average of values of a basket of currencies. The ACU idea was picked up by the ASEAN Plus Three at the finance ministers’ meeting in May 2006, where all thirteen participating governments agreed to conduct in-depth research on its feasibility.33 One thing to note here, however, is that monetary cooperation at this stage has not given rise to discussion on convergence criteria or explicit macroeconomic policy coordination, which would be necessary in managing the stable exchange rates among the countries whose capital movement is relatively free (i.e., Mundell-Fleming Condition or Unholy Trinity).34 Moreover, despite the concerns over global imbalance and the high dollar-dependence of East Asia, the currency discussion in the region has not yet converged into concrete actions.

Regional financial and monetary cooperation in the last ten years has established a relatively clear membership. Given the experience of the Asian financial crisis, the question of who is in and who is out is easily answered. In this context, regional cooperation includes a mechanism to protect vulnerable countries with relatively low foreign currency reserves and financial capacity to acquire access to emergency liquidity funding and technical assistance in developing their financial markets. Meanwhile, as seen in the progress within the three areas of financial and monetary cooperation, there is still strong resistance against a country compromising its policy autonomy. The regional currency discussion, though fundamental in addressing the dollar dependence and ultimate stability in regional financial affairs, is progressing very slowly and, at this point, quite superficially without much commitment from the monetary authorities of the region. Furthermore, the protection of sovereignty over monetary affairs is strikingly clear even in how the CMIM is set up differently from the envisioned AMF.35

Former IMF Managing Director Horst Köhler: “Our advice [to the East Asian region] is to pursue regionalization, not in opposition to the IMF, because the IMF is a global institution, but to do it in a complementary fashion.”[2]

Early critics questioned the reasoning behind the initiative. The Asia Times Onlinewrote in an editorial published several days after the meeting, “The idea that the existence of a currency swap arrangement or the wider concept of an Asian monetary fund […] could have prevented the Asian crisis or the worst of it, is both wrong and politically noxious.”[9] After IMF Managing Director Horst Köhler visited five Asian nations, including Thailand, in June 2000, the Asia Times Online denounced his endorsement of “the ill-conceived and likely never to be implemented Asean plus three […] currency-swap plan”.[10] In a 2001 interview with the Far Eastern Economic Review, Köhler stated that the CMI would promote regional economic cooperation and development and that he would not oppose the formation of an Asian Monetary Union.[2]

As of 16 October 2009, the network consisted of 16 bilateral arrangements among the ASEAN Plus Three countries worth approximately US$90 billion. Additionally, the ASEAN Swap Arrangement had a reserves pool of approximately US$2 billion.[11]

In May 2007, at the 10th meeting of ASEAN+3 Finance Ministers the CMI further progress was agreed upon.

Foundation of CMI was meant to expand bilateral swaps of ASEAN. In addition, it was to aid the existing financial facilities of IMF. Nonetheless, an incident in 2008 proved that CMI was not working up to its expectation and was in need of further development. The incident that led to creation of Chiang Mai Initiative Multilateralization (CMIM) was the 2008 Lehman shock, also known as largest bankruptcy in the U.S history. Instead of seeking for a way with CMI, Korea and Singapore used US Federal Reserve as their way of securing, and Indonesia sought for help from the World Bank.[12] Consequently, people realized that CMI needs a reserve pooling arrangement and took actions to multilateralize the initiative. Hence, CMIM was founded.

In February 2009, ASEAN+3 agreed to expand the fund to $120 billion up from the original level of $78 billion proposed in 2008.[13][14]

During the April 2009 meeting of ASEAN finance ministers in Pattaya, Thailand, the individual contributions to be made by each member state toward the reserves pool were announced. Each of the six original ASEAN members—Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, the Philippines, and Thailand—agreed to contribute US$4.77 billion, while each of the remaining four members would contribute between US$30 million and US$1 billion.[15] The ten countries were scheduled to meet their partners following the finance ministers’ meeting, but the summit’s cancellation due to the Thai political crisis delayed the launch of the multilateral agreement to a later date.[16][17] When leaders of the thirteen countries finally met in Bali in May, they finalized the individual contributions of China, Japan, and South Korea.[18] This summit also added Hong Kong as a new participant, whose contribution was added to that of China though Hong Kong remained “a monetary administration on its own”. Its participation raised China’s total contribution to US$38.4 billion, equal to that of Japan, and South Korea, which agreed to contribute US$19.2 billion.[19] China and Japan remains as the biggest contributors by each contributing 32 percent of total financial contributions. Including Korea, these three countries account for 80% of all the contributions made to CMIM while the remaining 20 percent is from ASEAN countries.[20]

On 3 May 2012, 15th ASEAN+3 Finance Ministers and Central Bank’s Governors’ meeting was held in Manila, Philippines which made an agreement about expanding CMIM from current $120 billion to 240 billion. The ASEAN+3 also agreed to adopt the CMIM Precautionary Line (CMIM-PL), which is designed on the model of PPL program within the IMF in order to prevent the financial crisis. In addition, IMF de-linked portion is raised from 20 percent to 30 percent and with its future goal of reaching 40 in the year 2014. Regarding the expanded funding of CMIM, countries now can receive up to $30 billion.[21]

The Chiang Mai Initiative Multilateralisation (CMIM) Agreement was signed on 28 December 2009,[22][23] and took effect on 24 March 2010.[24][25]

If the price is right and the quality is good, then most globally wants HSR, and in fact, globally, many countries have opted for HSR. The reasons are numerous, such as cutting total travel time on “Long-Haul” and help spur less expensive than air travel, massive population movement. This mass movement of population has many social and economic “Knock-On” benefits, such as social-benefit from closer family and community ties, to a host of economic benefit such as new cities and real estate development.

Normally technology from Japan or Germany is preferred over from China because of reputation. Yet everyone needs low ticket price that can be gained from the lower cost China system.

But so far Thailand is not making any real decision on HSR. The message is a mixed one. Earlier, Transport permanent secretary Somchai Siriwattanachoke explained that the strategic infrastructure development projects proposed by the Transport Ministry, is to cost one trillion baht more than the earlier ones initiated by the Yingluck government even without the high-speed train projects, because air transport development projects were included in the revised plan. Then, on Thailand’s Dictator, visit to China, a HSR System, was touted again, as a possibility.

However, the latest, from China, as reported by the World Economic Forum, is a HSR system, that originates in China, then moving into Vietnam, then spread across mainly Southeast Asia, through Vietnam. The original plan by Yingluck, for a HSR system, with Thailand as the central point, remain a question, many are asking.

The current plan in Thailand, a revised plan for the infrastructure development projects from Yingluck’s plan, covers dual track rail, ten electric mass transit train lines, development of highways and roads of the Highways and Rural Highways departments, construction of piers and dredging of waterways. And here, China has expressed strong interest in participating.

The revised plan for the infrastructure development projects covers dual track rail, ten electric train lines, development of highways and roads of the Highways and Rural Highways departments, construction of piers and dredging of waterways.

The head of Thailand’s military junta, Army commander Gen. Prayuth Chan-ocha, told a meeting of civil servants that “the 3 trillion baht project” was under discussion. “I have not approved it yet. We have to ask the Budget Bureau how much money we have,” he said.

In March, a court struck down the previous government’s 2 trillion baht ($62 billion) infrastructure plan as unconstitutional and said it would raise public debt to unacceptable levels. The previous government had said the projects would boost Thailand’s economic growth, create jobs and improve investor confidence.

The junta, which seized power from the elected government on May 22, has criticized the former administration for corruption and mismanagement. But it has begun to consider and implement policies that are similar to those of the ousted government.

The Thai junta has approved a US$100 billion deal for infrastructure development, however cutting out High Speed Rail (HSR) that the Yingluck Shinawatra government approved. The result is the cancellation of China’s dream of a “Yunnan Singapore High Speed Network”.

AP, the wire service, reports: “The head of Thailand’s military junta said Friday he is considering a 3 trillion baht ($93 billion) plan to build more rail lines and other infrastructure, adding more than $30 billion to a canceled project of the government it ousted.” Somchai said the infrastructure plans should be implemented over seven years from next year until 2022.

Thailand’s Transport permanent secretary Somchai Siriwattanachoke said that the meeting of the advisory committee decided to drop the high-speed train projects because they are considered as not of priority importance and need not be implemented for now and if they are proven to be necessary in the future, more funding can be sought for their implementation.

The “Yunnan Singapore High Speed Network” plays into China’s favor on the rivalry between the USA and China in Asia.

The USA China rivalry, is play out in Thailand case, going back to Thailand’s long record of being close to USA, to the point of having an annual military exercise, called Cobra Gold, that is the USA largest annual joint military exercise with a foreign country, outside of NATO.

Recently, during Yingluck government 2012, US pacific fleet general came to Thailand for “atmosphere scientific study”. Right after his visit, the Chinese strategic missile & nuclear general came to visit. During 2012 also discuss possible use of U-Tapao Airport as US military base. So there is a US-Thai-China love triangle.

In a Yingluck Shinawatra speech while still in power, Yingluck touted for Asia total rail integration.

Called “Trans Asia Rail Network” and this is coinciding with China’s foreign policy, for a Yunnan-Singapore High speed rail project. From strategic point of view, this can turn Thailand into another “Pipelinistan.” The result may, is that the HSR could significantly increase Thailand’s geo/political significance, apart from Thailand, already, being at the heart of mainland Southeast Asia.

Should Thailand have HSR?

If the price is right and the quality is good, then most wants HSR, and in fact, globally, many countries have opted for HSR. The reasons are numerous, such as cutting total travel time on “Long-Haul” and help spur less expensive than air travel, massive population movement. This mass movement of population has many social and economic “Knock-On” benefits, such as social-benefit from closer family and community ties, to a host of economic benefit such as new cities and real estate development.

Normally technology from Japan or Germany is preferred over from China because of reputation. Yet everyone needs low ticket price that can be gained from the lower cost China system.

Transport permanent secretary Somchai Siriwattanachoke explained Thursday that the strategic infrastructure development projects proposed by the Transport Ministry cost one trillion baht more than the earlier ones initiated by the Yingluck government even without the high-speed train projects because air transport development projects were included in the revised plan.

The revised plan for the infrastructure development projects covers dual track rail, ten electric train lines, development of highways and roads of the Highways and Rural Highways departments, construction of piers and dredging of waterways.

The revised plan for the infrastructure development projects covers dual track rail, ten electric train lines, development of highways and roads of the Highways and Rural Highways departments, construction of piers and dredging of waterways.

The head of Thailand’s military junta, Army commander Gen. Prayuth Chan-ocha, told a meeting of civil servants that “the 3 trillion baht project” was under discussion. “I have not approved it yet. We have to ask the Budget Bureau how much money we have,” he said.

In March, a court struck down the previous government’s 2 trillion baht ($62 billion) infrastructure plan as unconstitutional and said it would raise public debt to unacceptable levels. The previous government had said the projects would boost Thailand’s economic growth, create jobs and improve investor confidence.

The junta, which seized power from the elected government on May 22, has criticized the former administration for corruption and mismanagement. But it has begun to consider and implement policies that are similar to those of the ousted government.

Most eyes are on how Fascist Suthep’s movement is hurting Thailand, but some medium to long-term planners are more worried about Thailand’s future, with ASEAN AEC, coming into being next year.

Thailand, before the current political crisis, had a reputation of making most traction, in getting the country to benefit from ASEAN, noting however, ASEAN AEC, is both an opportunity, if Thailand is ready for integration, and also a risk, if Thailand is not ready for integration.

With Fascist Suthep activities, however, most planners, now says, “Thailand must now get its political house in order, then focus on ASEAN AEC.” However, the damaged has been done, and getting Thailand in political order, have in one instant, infrastructure spending to position Thailand as ASEAN AEC hub, has been killed, as a victim, of Thailand messy political scene.

Over the 2013 New Year holidays, the Fascist Suthep lead protesters said they will shut down Bangkok’s traffic for a few weeks. Bangkok’s is Thailand business and tourism center with an annual GDP of about US$100 billion in 2010. That shutting down of Bangkok, would greatly hurt Thailand’s economy, already reeling from months of often violent protest. The latest is, the UK’s Economist magazine, says the estimate of damage, to the economy, since Fascist Suthep went active, is about US$15 billion.

With that type of news, of Fascist Suthep activities, hitting Thailand, on and off, on someday, the following occurred: “Today the market opened and Thailand’s baht fell for an 11th day, the longest losing streak on record, and stocks slid on concern capital outflows will quicken amid prolonged political unrest in the country. The currency touched the weakest level since March 2010, adding to the worst annual loss in 13 years. The benchmark stock index dropped to a 15-month low before a meeting today between the Election Commission and members of the ruling and opposition parties to find ways to ease tensions that have gripped the nation since October. The benchmark SET Index (SET) slid 2.2 percent to 1,270.08, poised for its lowest close since Sept. 13, 2012.”

“The political crisis has badly hurt the Thai economy with delays in state spending, decline in consumption and investments,” Itphong Saengtubtim, the head of research at KGI Securities (Thailand) Pcl, told a wire service. “The tourism sector, which was the economy’s only bright spot, is also beginning to feel the adverse impact with plans for more demonstrations in Bangkok.”

A host of sustainable issues are related to the rich and poor gap, from economics, to democracy, to social, and to even the environment. And Thailand. with one of the globe’s widest rich and poor gap, have suffered on all fronts and all accounts, from the lack of being able to sustain most things, related to and critical to Thailand’s development.

The root of Thailand rich and poor gap, resulting in an inability to sustain much in Thailand, is of course, the long struggled between the Bangkok establishment traditional control of all things Thailand, and the rising up, of the rest of Thailand, minus the south, challenging the dominance of Bangkok’s traditional elites.Democracy to the grassroots is their means towards a better life, which runs against the Bangkok’s establishment anti-democracy for “Exploitation” control philosophy. In the current bout of that struggle between the two sides, the talk has reached the level, that one side, mostly the grassroots, is talking about of civil war and the other side,mostly the Bangkok middle-class and the super-rich oligarchs, is talking about mass slaughtering of the poor. The unfortunate fact is, what Thailand is currently going through, is just a version, of what had been going on since absolute menarche was replaced with constitutional monarche, in 1932. Thailand, for some reason, have learned little from its history.

It is unfortunate, that the Bangkok establishment, for all their talk about “Sustainable Economic Development” with always criticizing the Shinawatra Family of its “Populous Policy” as not sustainable, have not come to realized, that “Sustainable Economic Development” depends on “Sustainable Democratic Development.” One of these days, the Bangkok establishment is going to have to wake up, and understand/accept, that their deliberate dis-mantling of Thailand democratic process, will “Destroy” any chances, of “Sustainable Economic Development.”

With Thailand rock with internal sustainability question, Thailand’s ability to integrate with ASEAN, is questionable.

Jakarta Post, quoting a local Thai press, reports

But first and foremost, we must put our political house in order. The consequences of failing to do so will be grave: Investors will be scared away, while local businesspeople will suffer from lack of guidance and support. It will be impossible for Thailand to take advantage of the free flow of trade, investment, production and human resources if it remains at its relatively low level of competitiveness.
Thailand has a mountain to climb. The AEC is a summit worth aiming for, but only the strongest “mountaineers” will reach the top and enjoy the great view. The question is, can Thailand shirk its “sick-man” status quickly enough this year to ascend to the summit and enjoy the benefits along with other Asean nations?

Thailand’s lost ASEAN AEC Plan

About US$70 billion is being planned by the Yingluck administration, on infrastructure, mostly, hard transportation investments such as road and rail, and also river transport, to position Thailand as an ASEAN hub.

Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra has visited the Thailand’s Future 2020 exhibition in Khon Kaen, where she shared her vision on the country’s future development through mega projects. The exhibition is being held at Anek Prasong Hall of Khon Kaen university, during October 25th-27th. During her speech, the Premier stressed on the importance of the mega projects, including how it could better the locals’ quality of life, and what Khon Kaen and its nearby vicinity stood to benefit. She elaborated that the economy would improve through better infrastructures, communications, and logistics system. The PM added the government had come up with a strategic policy aimed at improving the potentials of Thai entrepreneurs, enabling them to compete in the international market. At the same time, Ms Yingluck added, with infrastructures completed, Thailand would certainly draw in more foreign investors, which would help drive the economy in the long run.

Most analyst says ASEAN‘s AEC concept, with a target of 2015 is just a mile-stone, and that AEC will take more time. With that, the ASEAN’s AEC concept had been tarnished to some extent, but many are still committed to the concept. Khao Sod reports, “Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra today gave a keynote speech at the opening of the “Path for Thailand toward ASEAN Community” exhibition in Bangkok, saying in parts that the government must re-adjust policy to welcome the change, and should not treat the integration as a threat. According to the Prime Minister, Thailand must develop new strategies, particularly by public sectors, to create more competitiveness in the region and improve the standard of living in Thailand. By creating competitiveness in the region, Ms. Yingluck suggested that Thai’s public sector should readjust regulations to support Human Rights and ease trade protectionism. ”The country also needs to rebalance their government public services to be more efficient and effective, in order to develop the standard of living in Thailand” Ms. Yingluck is quoted as saying. The Prime Minister also said that the wobbling global economy may become a challenge to the country. The US Quantitative Easing policy had strengthened national currency, due to large capital inflow into the country.

However, the situation has worsened the national export sector, which accounted up to 60% of national GDP. She stressed that Thailand should be ready for the economic fluctuation, both in domestic, regional and international stages. ”The private sector will also need to adjust their policy and improve their competitiveness through providing a better quality of goods,” Ms. Yingluck said. She also suggested that the country should rely more on green energy. Apart from the economic fluctuation, Ms. Yingluck noted, the nation is also facing a lack of capable workforce, as the elderly population is expected to increase from 14% in 2013, to 27% in 2025. At the end of her speech, the Prime Minister added that in order to be competitive in meeting the new challenge, and to live together peacefully, we must integrate our social and cultural aspects. Thai people must also develop English skill, as the language becoming more important as the media to communicate within the region, she added.

University of the Thai Chamber of Commerce (UTCC) reports:

Political instability is a key risk for Thailand’s economic growth next year, prompting the University of the Thai Chamber of Commerce (UTCC) to potentially cut its growth forecast next year to only 3% if protests are prolonged. The university’s study yesterday pointed out that politics will become more stable if the caretaker government is widely supported by all stakeholders to carry out political reform ahead of an election. This will rebuild consumer confidence, promote spending and drive economic growth to 4% next year. This will be the case even if there is no election on Feb 2 as scheduled, a scenario expected to create a political vacuum, the study found. UTCC expects the economy to see ”leap-frogging growth” if political reform is achieved before the election. However, if reforms are not worked out, it believes political tensions could cost Thailand 200-300 billion baht in the worst-case scenario if protests are prolonged and turn violent.

The Economist reports:

RARELY does a supposedly democratic country find itself in such a mess. Consider the following: at the time of writing Thailand has only a “caretaker” government, the real thing having resigned last week to allow for an election; the official opposition party has resigned from parliament en masse, and is yet to decide whether to take any further part in the democratic process; the leader of the opposition, Abhisit Vejjajiva, has just been indicted on a murder charge for ordering a crackdown on street protesters in 2010; his former colleague and deputy prime minister, Suthep Thaugsuban, had been charged with various other offences such as rebellion, arising from the fact that he is currently leading a revolution in the streets to try to topple the aforesaid (elected) government that has already resigned; and a former prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, living in self-imposed exile, faces a two-year jail term on charges of abuse of power and corruption, should he return to Thailand. Oh, and Mr Suthep faces murder charges too, the same as Mr Abhisit’s, from 2010.

Bad as it is, this litany of dysfunction is no longer very new. It all arises from the sometimes deadly conflict waged between Mr Thaksin and his opponents, since a time before he was deposed by military coup in 2006. It is depressing to see Thailand’s politicians become so obsessed by the supposed failings and virtues of just one man; only Italy’s fixation on Silvio Berlusconi really bears comparison. But, miraculously it seemed, at least Thailand’s economy has come through it all pretty well. Many other countries’ would have collapsed under the deadweight of political squabbling and myopia.

But for how long can this fortunate state of affairs continue? So far as investors and businessmen crave certainty and predictability, the only thing certain in Thailand these days is unpredictability. The prime minister, Yingluck Shinawatra, Mr Thaksin’s sister, now seems to have only the shakiest grasp on power. It’s a fair bet the election she has called for February 2014 will never even happen. She has assembled forums to discuss vague concepts of “reform”, to appease Mr Suthep. At the same time Mr Suthep pushes for a completely new government to be run by an unelected “people’s council”. That is also known as a coup.

For Thai businessmen, this is coming at the worst possible time: the beginning of the tourist season. Tourism is vital to the national economy. Last year the country pulled in about 22m visitors. Overall, the tourism-and-travel sector contributed about $28 billion to Thailand’s economy, which would make it worth 7.3% of GDP for 2012, according to the World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC). Including tourism-and-travel’s indirect impact on the economy would make the sector’s value rise to $64.3 billion, or 16.7% of GDP. The sector employs about 2m people directly, and far more indirectly.

There are already signs that the ongoing street protests and occasional political violence and thuggery are putting plenty of people off coming to the country—hardly surprising, as dozens of foreign governments have issued warnings against travelling to Thailand. The political situation is estimated to have reduced the number of inbound tourists in the month to mid-December by 300,000 people, or 8% of the number expected, says Yutthachai Soonthronrattanavate, president of the Association of Domestic Travel.

That is worrying, as is the thought that the current turmoil could drag on to the election in February, or even longer if that proves inconclusive—in other words, throughout the high season. Mindful of the value of the tourism industry, Mr Suthep’s mobs have promised not to occupy and close down Bangkok’s international airport, as their predecessors, the “yellow shirts”, did in 2008. That is now well understood to have hurt the tourist industry, and the wider economy.

That will not be enough to offset the difference however, as even more tourists are now attuned to Thailand’s problems and willing go elsewhere on their merry ways. Bangkok also makes a bundle as a destination for conferences and conventions, but now organisers are actively considering going to other South-East Asian venues rather than endure the road closures and traffic chaos that accompany endless rounds of street demos (to say nothing of the threat of violence).

The government’s own grandiose spending plans have been thrown up in the air too. A key part of the government’s economic strategy had been to boost domestic demand by Keynesian-style spending, the political failure to have a functioning government has effectively undermined that whole strategy. Plans to borrow as much as $68 billion for new railways and roads are to be put on the back-burner as parliamentary and constitutional approval for these bills is delayed indefinitely. Many businesses, such as construction companies, stood to benefit from those expenditures, and now their plans have been derailed as badly as any holidaymaker’s. Thailand’s growth rate for 2013 is likely to weigh in at 3% or so, relatively modest for the region. The government’s hope to achieve a rate of 7% for 2014 now looks wildly optimistic.
For all these reasons it’s not surprising that business organisations and their representatives have been actively calling for political reconciliation. Some have even been putting themselves forward as possible mediators. Anything to let the politicians know that gravity cannot be defied forever. Sooner or later, Thailand’s awful politics is bound to catch up with its economy.